The sheer impossibility of "life after death"

[Mr Sensible]

We hear a lot from the believers about mediums, near-death experiences, reincarnation reseach, various paranormal phenomena, all of which they argue strongly suggest that we survive the death of our bodies.

But regardless of the merits or otherwise of these various types of "evidence", it seems to be perfectly clear that the scientific evidence demonstrates that "life after death" is absolutely impossible. Let's just consider the overwhelming evidence.

We know that at death the brain ceases to function. Therefore, in order for there to be a "life after death", it is necessary that consciousness can, in principle, exist independently of the brain.

But this possibility is rendered extremely implausible when we consider that a severe blow to the head, or other injuries, will cause that person to lose consciousness. Is not the inescapable conclusion that the brain must therefore cause consciousness? If consciousness can simply disappear with a blow to the head, what on earth makes us imagine that consciousness can somehow exist with the death of the brain?? :eek:

If that were not bad enough, it is known that particular injuries to certain parts of the brain effect consciousness in well known predictable ways. For example the capacity to understand written words, or spoken words, or the capacity to speak etc, are impaired or even eliminated with injuries to certain regions of the brain.

Various drugs such as mescalin, LSD, heroin, opium and even alcohol and caffeine affect to varying degrees a person's impulses, dispositions, and attitudes.

I could go on and on. But I think it is very clear from what I have said that it is abundantly evident that consciousness is absolutely dependent upon the brain, and they can be no hope for a post-mortem existence.

My only puzzlement is why anyone should think otherwise? Any suggestions anybody?

[thaiboxerken]

You are correct.

[Blondin]

I agree with everything you said about why it seems so extremely unlikely that consciousness could possible exist after life but I don't think you've proven it "impossible".

I don't think anybody could but I would say it is safe to assume that, if there is awareness after death, no one has provided any compelling evidence to that effect.

[extra sensory potato]

apparantly, and i do not know how true this is, every human body loses exactly 21 grams at the moment of death. when i heard that i found it very fascinating, but if it were true i still do not know what this proves with regard to life after death, but i do know that nobody has ever proven that there is or isn't a life after death. only the dead know the answer to that and they're not talking, no matter what some wannabe-celebrity psychics want the gullible to believe.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by extra sensory potato
apparantly, and i do not know how true this is, every human body loses exactly 21 grams at the moment of death. when i heard that i found it very fascinating, but if it were true i still do not know what this proves with regard to life after death, but i do know that nobody has ever proven that there is or isn't a life after death. only the dead know the answer to that and they're not talking, no matter what some wannabe-celebrity psychics want the gullible to believe.

While 21 Grams was a great movie, it shouldn't be used as a metaphysical reference. (http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp) not that the 21 Grams B$ was anything other than a death motif that tied the movie together.

[extra sensory potato]

haven't seen the movie yet but thanks for clearing that up, EdipisReks

[Ladewig]

Why so few poll choices?

I would have voted for "this information is more evidence that it is unlikely that there is l.a.d." or "this information is evidence that any life after death must be very, very much unlike life as we know it."

I don't believe in life after death and I am confident enough in this belief to bet my immortal soul on the outcome.

The concept does seem kind of kooky to me. Does a toddler remain a toddler in the afterlife or does he slowly grow up or does he jump to a predefined age?

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

:clap: Frickin amazing! It’s not possible to argue with this logic! We know as a fact that you are right because if one thing can have an effect on another thing then they must be the same!!!!!!!!! No smart person has ever denied that! :teacher:

You can’t forget the extensive tests done over the years that have proven materialism!
:book: :wink8: :wow2:

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Just the fact that our mental state is drowsy when our body is tired proves this! It’s an example of when the body effects mind states! So we must conclude that if there was any kind of intelligent design involved with us then we should have been made not to sleep at all! We should have also been designed so that nothing from the outside could change our mind states! If God was involved in our creation we should be fully f**king conscious with the same never changing mental states up until our last mother f*cking heart beat! But we know that natural selection made us! ! ! ! ! ! !

Woo-woos your beliefs are truly nothing now!
:cry:

[TLN]

Originally posted by !Xx+-Rational-+xX!
You can’t forget the extensive tests done over the years that have proven materialism!

Wow, the same joke yet again! You're brilliant! Can you come perform at a corporate function for me please?

Or kill yourself, whatever...

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by TLN


Wow, the same joke yet again! You're brilliant! Can you come perform at a corporate function for me please?

Or kill yourself, whatever...

Stop questioning materialism!!!!

[TLN]

Originally posted by !Xx+-Rational-+xX!
Stop questioning materialism!!!!

You give yourself away using the word materialism, Ian. Praising yourself in other threads doesn't help either. Write a second joke or shut the hell up.

Look, just kill yourself right away then come haunt me. We can put all this to rest right now.

[Zep]

Hi Towlie! Good to see you haven't developed a new comedy routine yet. That leaves plenty of scope for us others, doesn't it.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by The kookball who dares to go against MJROTJREF


You give yourself away using the word materialism, Ian. Praising yourself in other threads doesn't help either. Write a second joke or shut the hell up.

Look, just kill yourself right away then come haunt me. We can put all this to rest right now.

Quit being such an f*cking kooktard because we all know that haunting is irrational! Now go f*g yourself or whatever it is you do!

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by Zepie
Hi Towlie! Good to see you haven't developed a new comedy routine yet. That leaves plenty of scope for us others, doesn't it.

I still think I might be your sockpuppet!!!!!

[TLN]

Originally posted by !Xx+-Rational-+xX!
Quit being such an f*cking kooktard because we all know that haunting is irrational! Now go f*g yourself or whatever it is you do!

So Ian it's disturbing. But whoever you are, one thing's for sure: you're a completely terrified coward. That's why you hide behind this one note joke. That's why you have to marginalize skeptics so you can better ignore them. Sure, who would want to listen to the type of stuff you parody? (Though parody is too strong a word for your juvenile nonsense (and juvenile is too strong a word too.)) This persona you have invented must be a great comfort to your feeble mind, desperately trying to preserve whatever nonsense it is you cling to by stereotyping skeptics so you can better ignore them.

So keep up the crappy work, keep that head firmly in the sand, and welcome to ignore jackass (my first ever).

[Tricky]

Welcome aboard, Mr. Sensible.

I agree that all of your points have merit, and indeed I have made many of them myself from time to time. I suspect you will soon meet a chap who calls himself Interesting Ian who will inform you that "correlation is not causation" and that the mind and the body are obviously different entities. You may wish to engage him, but do not expect him to accept anything you say, however well-supported.

Having said that, I must also say that I cannot vote for any of your categories. I still stop short of the line of declaring life-after-death (or more accurately, "mind-after-death") to be impossible. Though I can see no mechanism for it and no evidence for it, I simply cannot bring myself to be certain to the nth decimal place of anything. The "I am uncertain" choice, though, seems to imply I do not have a position on this, which is not the case.

I do not wish skeptics to be perceived as people who declare that they know the absolute truth. That is the sort of position I find distasteful in believers, so avoid hypocrisy, I will only say that the possibility of mind-after-death is vanishingly small, based on what we now know.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Tricky
Having said that, I must also say that I cannot vote for any of your categories. I still stop short of the line of declaring life-after-death (or more accurately, "mind-after-death") to be impossible. Though I can see no mechanism for it and no evidence for it, I simply cannot bring myself to be certain to the nth decimal place of anything. The "I am uncertain" choice, though, seems to imply I do not have a position on this, which is not the case.

Exactly my thoughts. I also did not vote.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by TLN


So Ian it's disturbing. But whoever you are, one thing's for sure: you're a completely terrified coward. That's why you hide behind this one note joke. That's why you have to marginalize skeptics so you can better ignore them. Sure, who would want to listen to the type of stuff you parody? (Though parody is too strong a word for your juvenile nonsense (and juvenile is too strong a word too.)) This persona you have invented must be a great comfort to your feeble mind, desperately trying to preserve whatever nonsense it is you cling to by stereotyping skeptics so you can better ignore them.

So keep up the crappy work, keep that head firmly in the sand, and welcome to ignore jackass (my first ever).

Don’t be such an idiot you f*cking weak minded believer! How dare you insult the leader of skeptics Mr. James Randi of the James Randi Educational Foundation! MJROTJREF would be ashamed of you and would defeat you in battle! You may have fun with your delusions but don’t expect the rest of us to believe any of your nonsense! Unintelligent fools like you are an embarrassment to critical thinkers!

[xouper]

I voted no.

[TLN]

Originally posted by xouper
I voted no.

Actually, considering the way the question is phrased, this makes even more sense. I now also vote no. (Basically, I just agree with whoever posted last.)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by TLN
Actually, considering the way the question is phrased, this makes even more sense. I now also vote no. (Basically, I just agree with whoever posted last.)
You two-faced b#stard! ;)

I won't vote "no" either, although it is technically true. It can be shown that it is incredibly unlikely. Voting no would make it look like I don't believe it's incredibly unlikely. Maybe we need a new poll.

[xouper]

Tricky: I won't vote "no" either, although it is technically true. It can be shown that it is incredibly unlikely. Voting no would make it look like I don't believe it's incredibly unlikely. Maybe we need a new poll.I voted no on the face value of the question as written. It is not logical to infer any more from my vote than that.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Tricky

You two-faced b#stard! ;)

I won't vote "no" either, although it is technically true. It can be shown that it is incredibly unlikely. Voting no would make it look like I don't believe it's incredibly unlikely. Maybe we need a new poll.

The question askes if the poster has "shown" this though. Seems pretty clear when put like that.

I hate to get ***** on my nose, but xouper's got a great ability to reduce things to their essentials as he did here. He's often a crucible on this board.

[Bleever]

Originally posted by Ladewig
Why so few poll choices?
The concept does seem kind of kooky to me. Does a toddler remain a toddler in the afterlife or does he slowly grow up or does he jump to a predefined age?

some interesting excerpts that I just got put up from William Dudley Pelley's "Why I Think The Dead Are Alive" contains an answer to that.

Then it began to assume the form of a human torso, with arms and legs growing at the corners. A protuberance like a head came out. What I was actually watching was the ‘build-up’ of a mature human body—a woman’s body. Believe it or not, by the end of ten to twelve minutes a fully formed and respectably dressed girl of some twenty-five to thirty years was fully molded in the center of the group and to all intents and purposes quite the counterpart of any of the mortal women in that room....wonder beneath a chair (http://www.freewebs.com/afterlife/wonder.htm)


Gertrude handed back the photographs. Suddenly, with a surge of emotions, she threw both arms around her father and mother. The three of them embraced there—like the three normal persons, which they were—loath to give each other up. Could that father and mother ever conceive thereafter that their beloved daughter was dead, or that she had “perished”? What Mosaic numskull was it who had written back over the years, “The dead know not anything,” and ‘There is no device nor wisdom in the grave whither thou goest?”Rubbish!....a Bertie Lilly Candler session (http://www.freewebs.com/afterlife/candler.htm)

The “snowball” lost its rotundity and became elongated vertically. It oscillated, it writhed, it mounted higher and higher. Reaching a pillar of five feet two or three, it gave a peculiar shuddering twist. Then even in ruby light I blinked my eye. A particularly handsome young woman stood before me, gowned in white. Her long chestnut hair fell in curls down her back from under a Juliette cap. She was personable, she was graceful. In a voice whose chuckle did not cancel its culture, she accosted me …“Well, Daddy, how do you like that?” I could scarcely speak. “You’re … Harriet?” I managed to exclaim on my second attempt..Pelley's daughter materializes for the first time (http://www.freewebs.com/afterlife/daughter.htm)

The skeptic with orthodox reflexes, who never has witnessed such phenomena, is puzzled or caustic because he does not know what happens. How in the name of sound sense can persons who have vacated mortal vehicles—and these vehicles been interred in cemeteries—possibly “come back” in organic equipment and give every evidence of being alive in former aspects of personality?... an explanation for the light-body and materialization (http://www.freewebs.com/afterlife/lightbody.htm)

[xouper]

Bleever: http://www.freewebs.com/afterlife/lightbody.htmFrom your link:

I am told on reliable scientific authority that if the common human eye could accommodate rays of ultra-violet length, the race would suddenly become aware of the complete non-occurrence of death.That sounds very much like a testable claim that would be eligible for the JREF challenge.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
You are correct.

Glad that is cleared up! It was so easy!

:rolleyes:

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Mr Sensible

We know that at death the brain ceases to function. Therefore, in order for there to be a "life after death", it is necessary that consciousness can, in principle, exist independently of the brain.


I absolutely disbelieve in life after death, and like you have no use for the so called evidence. Nevertheless, I stop short of saying it's absolutely impossible.

Define the "soul" as the complex of information which is aware of its own existence, without postulating whether it can exist without a brain.

What if at the moment of death all the information in the brain were transferred to an "empty" brain or some other vehicle?

A waiting comatose clone grown for the purpose, perhaps? :)

[EternalUniverse]

Originally posted by Mr Sensible
We hear a lot from the believers about mediums, near-death experiences, reincarnation reseach, various paranormal phenomena, all of which they argue strongly suggest that we survive the death of our bodies.

But regardless of the merits or otherwise of these various types of "evidence", it seems to be perfectly clear that the scientific evidence demonstrates that "life after death" is absolutely impossible. Let's just consider the overwhelming evidence.

We know that at death the brain ceases to function. Therefore, in order for there to be a "life after death", it is necessary that consciousness can, in principle, exist independently of the brain.

But this possibility is rendered extremely implausible when we consider that a severe blow to the head, or other injuries, will cause that person to lose consciousness. Is not the inescapable conclusion that the brain must therefore cause consciousness? If consciousness can simply disappear with a blow to the head, what on earth makes us imagine that consciousness can somehow exist with the death of the brain?? :eek:

If that were not bad enough, it is known that particular injuries to certain parts of the brain effect consciousness in well known predictable ways. For example the capacity to understand written words, or spoken words, or the capacity to speak etc, are impaired or even eliminated with injuries to certain regions of the brain.

Various drugs such as mescalin, LSD, heroin, opium and even alcohol and caffeine affect to varying degrees a person's impulses, dispositions, and attitudes.

I could go on and on. But I think it is very clear from what I have said that it is abundantly evident that consciousness is absolutely dependent upon the brain, and they can be no hope for a post-mortem existence.

My only puzzlement is why anyone should think otherwise? Any suggestions anybody?

As one posted remarked, the evidence makes us believe that we should think that the mind is dependent on the brain, but doesn't prove this notion.

Are you familiar with the radio metaphor argument? Damage to a radio affects the quality and/or output of the signal, but the signal is still there regardless of the existence of the radio. There are many problems with this idea, but it casts at least some doubt on the idea that the mind depends on the brain for its existence.

Some subjectivists would also state that the brain is what depends on the mind...but their position has problems, too.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ladewig


The concept does seem kind of kooky to me. Does a toddler remain a toddler in the afterlife or does he slowly grow up or does he jump to a predefined age?

Absolutely definitely not. That simply wouldn't make sense at all.

[Interesting Ian]

I know a lot of you are well aware of my opinion on this issue. But maybe some of you aren't so I may as well paste in what I've said before.

Even if we were to describe the mind as being caused by the brain (although I believe the use of "cause" here is technically inappropriate), this needn't have any implications that the mind has its origin in the brain. The picture on a television set is caused by its internal components. This of course doesn't mean to say that the origin of the storylines of the tv programmes being shown have their origin in the tv sets internal components! Indeed it would be preposterous to suppose they do! I believe a partial analogy can be drawn here in that it is equally ludicrous, if not more so, that the richness of our mental lives is somehow mysterious created ex nihilo by physical processes.




Exploring the television set analogy, peoples state of consciousness or mind states would correspond to the picture quality. On the other hand the essential self corresponds to the storyline. By the essential self I mean the *I*. Namely that which remains unchanged from your 5 year old self, to your sober adult self, to when you're drunk etc. It is that which makes you you even though your apparent personality, and intelligence, and interests may change radically.





Picture quality = state of mind
storyline = self.

1. state of brain
2. state of mind
3. essential self


is roughly analogical to

1. state of internal components of TV set
2. picture quality
3. storyline of programme





Thus one can affect the processes in the brain (drinking alcohol or whatever) and it affects states of mind (picture quality). But it doesn't affect the essentail self (storyline).

Thus when I get drunk, and despite that my mind might change and I become more gregarious or whatever, I nevertheless have the same self. It's just that this self feels differently. I mean we act as if it's the same self, otherwise why plan a night out drinking? If the self on the other hand is literally equated with a person's states of mind, then obviously, once you have consumed alcohol you are literally a different person. But this is certainly contrary to how we feel! Whether I am in a good mood or a bad mood, my self hasn't changed, it's just the way my self feels.

Imagine 2 people from the 17th century traveling to the 21st century and encountering a TV set showing some movie or other. After being suitably amazed, and after tinkering around with its internal components, you can imagine one of them claiming that not just the picture, but the storyline of the movie must be wholly generated by these internal components since tinkering with them affects the picture. He might claim there is overwhelming evidence that this must be so. The other person however will rightly point out that although he grants that the picture itself is generated by these internal components, it cannot be the case that the actual contents of the movie, the actual storyline with its depiction of various emotions etc can be generated by just these internal components. This is because there is nothing about the physical processes within the TV set which could conceivably lead to the generation of a storyline.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TLN
[B]

You give yourself away using the word materialism, Ian. Praising yourself in other threads doesn't help either. Write a second joke or shut the hell up.



I told you I have a skeptic sock puppet, but you can't conclude that Towelie is me just because he uses the word materialism! Do you not have any other suspects for my sock puppet??

[EternalUniverse]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I know a lot of you are well aware of my opinion on this issue. But maybe some of you aren't so I may as well paste in what I've said before.

Even if we were to describe the mind as being caused by the brain (although I believe the use of "cause" here is technically inappropriate), this needn't have any implications that the mind has its origin in the brain. The picture on a television set is caused by its internal components. This of course doesn't mean to say that the origin of the storylines of the tv programmes being shown have their origin in the tv sets internal components! Indeed it would be preposterous to suppose they do! I believe a partial analogy can be drawn here in that it is equally ludicrous, if not more so, that the richness of our mental lives is somehow mysterious created ex nihilo by physical processes.




Exploring the television set analogy, peoples state of consciousness or mind states would correspond to the picture quality. On the other hand the essential self corresponds to the storyline. By the essential self I mean the *I*. Namely that which remains unchanged from your 5 year old self, to your sober adult self, to when you're drunk etc. It is that which makes you you even though your apparent personality, and intelligence, and interests may change radically.





Picture quality = state of mind
storyline = self.

1. state of brain
2. state of mind
3. essential self


is roughly analogical to

1. state of internal components of TV set
2. picture quality
3. storyline of programme





Thus one can affect the processes in the brain (drinking alcohol or whatever) and it affects states of mind (picture quality). But it doesn't affect the essentail self (storyline).

Thus when I get drunk, and despite that my mind might change and I become more gregarious or whatever, I nevertheless have the same self. It's just that this self feels differently. I mean we act as if it's the same self, otherwise why plan a night out drinking? If the self on the other hand is literally equated with a person's states of mind, then obviously, once you have consumed alcohol you are literally a different person. But this is certainly contrary to how we feel! Whether I am in a good mood or a bad mood, my self hasn't changed, it's just the way my self feels.

Imagine 2 people from the 17th century traveling to the 21st century and encountering a TV set showing some movie or other. After being suitably amazed, and after tinkering around with its internal components, you can imagine one of them claiming that not just the picture, but the storyline of the movie must be wholly generated by these internal components since tinkering with them affects the picture. He might claim there is overwhelming evidence that this must be so. The other person however will rightly point out that although he grants that the picture itself is generated by these internal components, it cannot be the case that the actual contents of the movie, the actual storyline with its depiction of various emotions etc can be generated by just these internal components. This is because there is nothing about the physical processes within the TV set which could conceivably lead to the generation of a storyline.

Ian, even if we entertain the notion that the mind/brain relation is like what happens with television, how do we turn this from something that is possible, to something that is probable?

For example, the storylines in the tv example come out of tv signals, like the content of the radio programs in the radio metaphor comes from radio signals. How does your analogy (which resembles the idea using the radio metaphor) explain the source of the storyline? Is this what some people describe as the soul?

[Mike D.]

Ian,

If the self is pure consciousness and that consciousness is primary and remains no matter what happens to material brains (even though it may be temporarily altered by brain states), then why does consciousness appear to *vanish* under general anesthesia, etc. One would think that from your point of view, an underlying stratum of pure awareness would remain at all times, and that consciousness could be altered by brain states by not obliterated by them. Yet such obliteration seems at times to happen. Why?

Mike

[tdn]

Originally posted by Mike D.
If the self is pure consciousness and that consciousness is primary and remains no matter what happens to material brains (even though it may be temporarily altered by brain states), then why does consciousness appear to *vanish* under general anesthesia, etc.

To use the TV metaphor, it's as if the set's sound and contrast were turned all the way down. Or the set unplugged.

It's really not all that wacky a theory, and I've heard it a few times before. The problem, for good or ill, is that it isn't falsifiable (AFAIK).

I personally don't believe it, but I still find the idea intriguing.

[Andonyx]

I'm not sure that a blow to the head causes a loss of "consciousness" in the same way we're using consciousness in this debate.

For instance I would not consider a sleeping person to be devoid of the characteristic of consciousness as we are using it here. Nor someone in a coma...etc etc.

A person who is "unconscious" from a blow to the head can still retain the ability to react to sensory stimuli, still has many brain processes ocurring, and in my opinion is still self-aware, even if the details of that awareness may not coincide with an accurate picture of the world around them. In some cases they can still form new memories as well.

So I would disagree with that part of Mr. Sensible's argument.

[tdn]

Originally posted by Andonyx
I'm not sure that a blow to the head causes a loss of "consciousness" in the same way we're using consciousness in this debate.

Consciousness as in awake and alert, vs consciousness as in "I exist"?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Mike D.
Ian,

If the self is pure consciousness and that consciousness is primary and remains no matter what happens to material brains (even though it may be temporarily altered by brain states), then why does consciousness appear to *vanish* under general anesthesia, etc. One would think that from your point of view, an underlying stratum of pure awareness would remain at all times, and that consciousness could be altered by brain states by not obliterated by them. Yet such obliteration seems at times to happen. Why?

Mike

Are you toying with the idea that the physical should not have any affect on the degree of ones state of mental alertness, or are you arguing that even though it is reasonable to suppose that the physical should have an affect on the degree of ones state of mental alertness, it should not vary so much that ones conscious awareness could diminish to zero?

If we hold a mental monist position, this doesn't entail that the physical must be a mere epiphenomenon, but rather that one cannot meaningfully talk about the physical existing in abstraction from any consciousnesses whatsoever. Thus there is no problem in supposing the physical can affect the mental, and even ones state of alertness, so long as one does not say the physical generates the mental.

Now it certainly might seem that if the brain is in a given state, and there is no conscious awareness, then this implies that consciousness is a product of the brain. But we are considering the scenario where the self operates through the brain (a position which makes a great deal more sense when one considers the difficulties of the opposing view). The brain acts as a kind of filter or limiter to consciousness, so that whilst we subsist in this empirical reality we live in a reduced state of conscious awareness. In my opinion, depending on the state of our brains, it will limit our awareness, memories etc, and conversely when our selves no longer operate through the brain our selves will exist in an unadulterated state enjoying unimpeded understanding, intelligence, and memories etc. But while the self is operating through the brain, it is subject to the constraints of the brain. Thus if our degree of conscious awareness can diminish whilst we operate through our brains, there is nothing inherently absurd to suppose it can diminish to zero.

I should also mention that there have been reports of "out of body experiences" during general anaesthesia. Such experiences might occur if the self is in someway loosened from the brain so that the brain can no longer reduce ones consciousness. This also happens in NDEs. This fits in with my idea that you wouldn't be fully conscious whilst operating through the brain under GA, or near death, because the brain needs to be functioning in an appropriate manner. On the other hand, if the self is loosened from the body, which is suggested by out of body experiences, it should not be surprising that one might be conscious, or indeed, as in some NDE's, be more consciously aware than one has ever been before (giving support for my hypothesis). On the other hand, under the brain generates consciousness hypothesis, it seems to me that one ought either not be consciously aware at all during GA or NDEs, or have a much reduced state of conscious awareness (depending on how much the brain can function during these states).

BTW, you've a very intelligent guy Mike. What do you think? Are you disposed to think that both reason and evidence favours the extinction hypothesis?

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by tdn


Consciousness as in awake and alert, vs consciousness as in "I exist"?

Yeah, that's what I'm getting at.

[Vorticity]

Originally posted by xouper
From your link:

"I am told on reliable scientific authority that if the common human eye could accommodate rays of ultra-violet length, the race would suddenly become aware of the complete non-occurrence of death."

That sounds very much like a testable claim that would be eligible for the JREF challenge.
Not really that related to the topic at hand, but:

I recall reading that the lens of a human eye is opaque to ultraviolet (and higher) frequencies. However, the material out of which surgically implanted artificial lenses are made is not. Therefore, there have been reports of people with artificial lenses seeing what they described describe as "blue flashes" in their peripheral zone. Under more closely controlled tests it was relatively simple to demonstrate that they had developed a sensitivity to UV light.

I haven't heard any reports of sightings of disembodied floating torsos from these people, though.

[tdn]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I should also mention that there have been reports of "out of body experiences" during general anaesthesia.

I would hasten to add that neither OBEs nor NDEs have been verified to be actual phenomena. Many claim to have had these, but controlled studies (in which both states can be artificially induced) have shown these to be nothing more than dreams or brain malfunction.

(This is not to say that there are not actual OBEs and NDEs, but empirical evidence has so far turned up zilch. So to suggest that the existance of either is proof of a higher consciousness is to proceed from a probably false assumption.)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by tdn


I would hasten to add that neither OBEs nor NDEs have been verified to be actual phenomena. Many claim to have had these, but controlled studies (in which both states can be artificially induced) have shown these to be nothing more than dreams or brain malfunction.

(This is not to say that there are not actual OBEs and NDEs, but empirical evidence has so far turned up zilch. So to suggest that the existance of either is proof of a higher consciousness is to proceed from a probably false assumption.)

It doesn't matter in the context of my argument. For example, when one is clinically dead one shouldn't be having any experiences at all - hallucinations or not, nevermind be more consciously aware than they have ever been before.

And NDE's certainly haven't been shown to be dreams or brain malfunction. You've been misinformed.

[tdn]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It doesn't matter in the context of my argument. For example, when one is clinically dead one shouldn't be having any experiences at all - hallucinations or not, nevermind be more consciously aware than they have ever been before.

In the context of your argument, sure.

And NDE's certainly haven't been shown to be dreams or brain malfunction. You've been misinformed.

They've been replicated in the lab. By stimulating certain parts of the brain, subjects have had the whole bright light at the end of the tunnel and sense of well-being thing, as well as alien (or dead relative) visitations. These experiences also happen to people who have serious deprivation of oxygen to the brain. And to some heavy drug users.

As for OBEs, experiments were done with people claiming to have them. They were instructed to rise above their bodies and read a word written on a shelf above them. Upon waking, they were told to say what that word was. They failed 100% of the time. Sounds more like a dream to me.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by tdn
And NDE's certainly haven't been shown to be dreams or brain malfunction. You've been misinformed.


tdn
They've been replicated in the lab. By stimulating certain parts of the brain, subjects have had the whole bright light at the end of the tunnel and sense of well-being thing, as well as alien (or dead relative) visitations.



I'm well read on this. This hasn't occurred so far as I am aware. Moreover, even if it had happened, it would be irrelevant to your claim that they are hallucinations or dreams.



These experiences also happen to people who have serious deprivation of oxygen to the brain. And to some heavy drug users.



Depends what you mean by "these experiences". Oxygen deprivation can lead to certain aspects of an NDE. Ketamine is the drug which most closely resembles an NDE, although I believe I read somewhere that a central element of a "normal" NDE, namely the experience of love, is missing. But again, this is all irrelevant to the question of whether they are dreams or hallucinations. And even if they are hallucinations, this does not prove we cease to exist when we die.



As for OBEs, experiments were done with people claiming to have them. They were instructed to rise above their bodies and read a word written on a shelf above them. Upon waking, they were told to say what that word was. They failed 100% of the time. Sounds more like a dream to me.



Voluntary induced OBEs (as opposed to involuntary) are rather insipid. Moreover it is extremely unclear that the awareness of ones environment during a OBE (of whatever flavour) functions in the same way as normal vision. BTW, during certain OBEs people do experience things that are physically not there, and it seems that ones imagination plays some role in the phenomenology of the experience. This is not to say that the experience is wholly a hallucination anymore than the fact that what we see in our everyday state, being an interpretation by the mind of what actually enters our eyes, means that what we see is an hallucination. Our minds shape and interpret what we see even in our everyday state. Perceptual illusions illustrate this nicely. It seems reasonable to suppose that this happens to an even greater extent during OBEs. The degree of veridicality might well depend on the degree of ummm . . .richness? of the experience.

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Are you toying with the idea that the physical should not have any affect on the degree of ones state of mental alertness, or are you arguing that even though it is reasonable to suppose that the physical should have an affect on the degree of ones state of mental alertness, it should not vary so much that ones conscious awareness could diminish to zero?

If we hold a mental monist position, this doesn't entail that the physical must be a mere epiphenomenon, but rather that one cannot meaningfully talk about the physical existing in abstraction from any consciousnesses whatsoever. Thus there is no problem in supposing the physical can affect the mental, and even ones state of alertness, so long as one does not say the physical generates the mental.

Now it certainly might seem that if the brain is in a given state, and there is no conscious awareness, then this implies that consciousness is a product of the brain. But we are considering the scenario where the self operates through the brain (a position which makes a great deal more sense when one considers the difficulties of the opposing view). The brain acts as a kind of filter or limiter to consciousness, so that whilst we subsist in this empirical reality we live in a reduced state of conscious awareness. In my opinion, depending on the state of our brains, it will limit our awareness, memories etc, and conversely when our selves no longer operate through the brain our selves will exist in an unadulterated state enjoying unimpeded understanding, intelligence, and memories etc. But while the self is operating through the brain, it is subject to the constraints of the brain. Thus if our degree of conscious awareness can diminish whilst we operate through our brains, there is nothing inherently absurd to suppose it can diminish to zero.

I should also mention that there have been reports of "out of body experiences" during general anaesthesia. Such experiences might occur if the self is in someway loosened from the brain so that the brain can no longer reduce ones consciousness. This also happens in NDEs. This fits in with my idea that you wouldn't be fully conscious whilst operating through the brain under GA, or near death, because the brain needs to be functioning in an appropriate manner. On the other hand, if the self is loosened from the body, which is suggested by out of body experiences, it should not be surprising that one might be conscious, or indeed, as in some NDE's, be more consciously aware than one has ever been before (giving support for my hypothesis). On the other hand, under the brain generates consciousness hypothesis, it seems to me that one ought either not be consciously aware at all during GA or NDEs, or have a much reduced state of conscious awareness (depending on how much the brain can function during these states).

BTW, you've a very intelligent guy Mike. What do you think? Are you disposed to think that both reason and evidence favours the extinction hypothesis?

Thanks for your answer to my question, Ian. While hypotheses such as the one you write about here are interesting, I would think that they would need to be fleshed out further by supportive experimental evidence and conceptual depth before they would be generally accepted by the scientific community. When I say "conceptual depth," I am not alluding in a personal way to your words here, but to what I feel is a *general* need of conceptual depth by such theories.

Regarding my own views, I am agnostic on the question of life after death, but feel that at present the extinction hypothesis is better supported by evidence and reason. However, I do feel there also exists evidence *suggestive* of survival after death, but that this evidence has not at present attained the status of solid *scientific* evidence. I can conceive of the possibility that as a result of further experimentation and study of the alleged evidence it at some point *could* become more persuasive in relation to the survival hypothesis. If it did so, I believe that the task of the theorists would then be to propose theories that would somehow accomodate the already well established evidence that suggests that consciousness and mind are wholly dependent on the brain, *and* the newly established evidence that suggests that they are not.

Mike

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by tdn

As for OBEs, experiments were done with people claiming to have them. They were instructed to rise above their bodies and read a word written on a shelf above them. Upon waking, they were told to say what that word was. They failed 100% of the time. Sounds more like a dream to me.

tdn,

Could you give a reference to these experiments?

I know of one case where an OBE experiment subject allegedly succeeded in identifying such a target. Here is the link:

http://www.esalenctr.org/display/confpage.cfm?confid=3&pageid=23&pgtype=1

I am not making any claim here about the *quality* of this experiment. I only post the link to show that there is an example of this kind of experiment that appears to have had a positive result.

Mike

[Mike D.]

tdn,

Regarding the larger question you were discussing of whether or not OBEs and NDEs are hallucinations or in some sense "real," I think that most people who have read much in this area beyond the popular inspirational literature on this subject will realize that there is good evidence that at least some of these experiences are hallucinatory in nature. As to whether they *all* are or not, the main issue here for me is if they include veridical elements, and to what *degree* the elements are veridical and can be established beyond the subjective report of the person having the experience. At present, I don't think that the seeming veridicality of some of these experiences has progressed beyond the anecdotal stage. I've read that new experiments to see if NDEers can identify targets place high in operating rooms will be starting soon, and that Peter Fenwick is one of the researchers involved.

Even if solid evidence for the veridicality of some of these experiences should emerge, I think we would be then faced with the question of whether some aspect of the person really left his or her body during the experience, or whether the explanation involves some form of extended, but still brain-based awareness, coupled with a hallucination of having literally left the body.

See this link for an article on OBEs and NDEs by Professor Stephen Braude, Chairman of the Philosophy Department at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. Braude argues, not only that that OBEs and NDEs are *not* good evidece for life after death, but also that they provide no convincing evidence that any aspect of a person actually leaves the body during these experiences:

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/braude/obe.htm

Mike

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Mike D.
At present, I don't think that the seeming veridicality of some of these experiences has progressed beyond the anecdotal stage. I've read that new experiments to see if NDEers can identify targets place high in operating rooms will be starting soon, and that Peter Fenwick is one of the researchers involved.



Just to repeat what I said before about these forthcoming experiments. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they turn out to be a comprehensive failure. But should this transpire I certainly don't think this would mean that the OOBE during an NDE is wholly an hallucination. I'll paste in what I said on this subject before.

Just imagine the situation. You're lying there in incredible pain, aware that you're on the threshold of death, and suddenly you find yourself apparently outside of your body somewhere near the ceiling. Of course, whether you would realise immediately that you were out of your body is debatable. What you will likely experience is complete confusion about what is happening. You will notice a body below, but will not immediately recognise yourself (think about what you look like in a mirror compared to a photograph). After a few seconds or so when you realise that it is in fact YOU below being operated on, or whatever, just imagine the profound emotional feelings and shock that will overcome you. One things for sure; you will be completely fixated by the image of your body below and the procedures being carried out on it. And then, remember, that this out of body stage only has a limited duration before a person finds himself/herself entering a darkness, going towards a light, approaching an otherworldly realm etc.

Now a crucial question here is where the signs are located. Are they completely visible from any location provided one is at a elevated height, or can the messages only be seen from a particular perspective? Anyone know? Certainly if it is the latter, and considering the emotional fixation of the NDE're on his/her body below, it is not at all surprising that they do not notice any hidden messages!

But it is not entirely clear that perceptions during these OBE's are like normal perception in any case. This possibility is bolstered by a case studied in "Mindsight" by Kenneth Ring and (Sharon Cooper)? where a blind person (but not from birth) said something along the lines that it wasn't actually literally vision, but something very similar to it. Maybe the "vision" might arguably be described as an implicit awareness of ones environment. In such an out of body state it might well be that our "visual" perceptions are governed by the emotions. In other words that which we can identify with, that which has emotional resonance.

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by tdn


To use the TV metaphor, it's as if the set's sound and contrast were turned all the way down. Or the set unplugged.

It's really not all that wacky a theory, and I've heard it a few times before. The problem, for good or ill, is that it isn't falsifiable (AFAIK).

I personally don't believe it, but I still find the idea intriguing.

tdn,

In Ian's metaphor as I understand it, the "essential self" that presumably will continue to exist after death is represented by the storyline of the program that is being broadcast and that is picked up by the TV. And you seem to be saying here that the set's sound and contrast being turned all the way down, or the set unplugged, is a metaphor for the brain under general anesthesia. To me the implication then is that the "self" (or the storyline of the program) is essentially unconscious unless there is a plugged in, turned on, and properly adjusted TV to receive it and give it "life." If this metaphor should be taken as literally representative of reality, then our memories and personality traits are unconscious and incapable of expression without a living brain. Even if they still persist after death, they would not be conscious and would not in any sense constitue a person as we generally conceive of a person.

(I suppose if there is such a thing as a real trance medium, the medium's brain might tune into this unconscious cluster of personality traits and memories and termporarily give it a kind of quasi conscious existence, but this would certainly not be the same as a conscious living being living a purposeful existence after death.)

(What I've written above should not be indicative of any personal belief one way or the other on my part. I'm just trying to play around a bit with Ian's metaphor and your comments.)

Mike

[tdn]

Originally posted by Mike D.


tdn,

Could you give a reference to these experiments?

No.

I saw a program about this stuff several years ago on TLC or the Discovery Channel, back before they had nothing but Monster Doilies and Trading Monster Wedding Gowns.

Take that for what it's worth.

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Just to repeat what I said before about these forthcoming experiments. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they turn out to be a comprehensive failure. But should this transpire I certainly don't think this would mean that the OOBE during an NDE is wholly an hallucination.

Ian,

I would agree with you that comprehensive failure in the forthcoming experiments would not necessarily by itself be proof that the OBEs in NDEs are wholly hallucinatory. But in the absence of success in such experiments, I don't think we can expect the scientific community in general to come to view such experiences as *more* than hallucinatory, even if the ideas you express in your post are actually valid.

Mike

[tdn]

Originally posted by Mike D.
If this metaphor should be taken as literally representative of reality, then our memories and personality traits are unconscious and incapable of expression without a living brain. Even if they still persist after death, they would not be conscious and would not in any sense constitue a person as we generally conceive of a person.

Good point. That would seem to suggest that an immortal soul is a pretty useless thing unless there is a brain to give it expression. I don't care if Women's Intramural Mudwrestling is on TV tonight, if my TV is broken I can't watch it anyway.

That's kind of like my philosophy on past lives -- if you can't remember them, and draw wisdom from them, what use are they?

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by tdn

That's kind of like my philosophy on past lives -- if you can't remember them, and draw wisdom from them, what use are they?

I agree!

[Tricky]

Originally posted by tdn


Good point. That would seem to suggest that an immortal soul is a pretty useless thing unless there is a brain to give it expression. I don't care if Women's Intramural Mudwrestling is on TV tonight, if my TV is broken I can't watch it anyway.

That's kind of like my philosophy on past lives -- if you can't remember them, and draw wisdom from them, what use are they?
Also agreed. When paranormal research produces one single useful thing (other than "useful as a conversation starter"), then I will give it some credence. Until then, it is a waste of good neurons.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Even if we were to describe the mind as being caused by the brain (although I believe the use of "cause" here is technically inappropriate), this needn't have any implications that the mind has its origin in the brain. The picture on a television set is caused by its internal components. This of course doesn't mean to say that the origin of the storylines of the tv programmes being shown have their origin in the tv sets internal components! Indeed it would be preposterous to suppose they do! I believe a partial analogy can be drawn here in that it is equally ludicrous, if not more so, that the richness of our mental lives is somehow mysterious created ex nihilo by physical processes.

Exploring the television set analogy, peoples state of consciousness or mind states would correspond to the picture quality. On the other hand the essential self corresponds to the storyline. By the essential self I mean the *I*. Namely that which remains unchanged from your 5 year old self, to your sober adult self, to when you're drunk etc. It is that which makes you you even though your apparent personality, and intelligence, and interests may change radically.

There is one tiny little flaw with your analogy. We know for a fact that storylines exists, and we can what the storyline is and define which parts of the movie won't change, when you tamper with the television. You can not show that you have any "qualities" that doesn't change and therefore belong with your "I", nor that any such thing exists. You're simply making an unbased assertion.
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
[in relation to NDEs]
For example, when one is clinically dead one shouldn't be having any experiences at all - hallucinations or not, nevermind be more consciously aware than they have ever been before.
We don't know what people experience when they're dead Ian, People who're dead have this funny tendency to not wake up and tell about their experiences :rolleyes: As for experiences people have when under operation where parts of their brain is not "connected", we have no way of knowing if their experiences actually happen while under operation, or when they're waking up since we can't really talk to them when they're unconscious.
Originally posted by Interesting Ian

But it is not entirely clear that perceptions during these OBE's are like normal perception in any case. This possibility is bolstered by a case studied in "Mindsight" by Kenneth Ring and (Sharon Cooper)? where a blind person (but not from birth) said something along the lines that it wasn't actually literally vision, but something very similar to it. Maybe the "vision" might arguably be described as an implicit awareness of ones environment. In such an out of body state it might well be that our "visual" perceptions are governed by the emotions. In other words that which we can identify with, that which has emotional resonance.
Is that "blind sight” you're referring to? That isn't paranormal. With some blind people there's nothing wrong with their eyes, rather the fault is in the part of the brain that is supposed to process the input and generate a picture. Such people still get a sort of impression of the world, which allows them to fx "guess" whether there's a cross or a circle on a paper presented to them with more than 50% accuracy, or shape their hand to an object they're picking up before they touch it.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by tdn

MikeD
In Ian's metaphor as I understand it, the "essential self" that presumably will continue to exist after death is represented by the storyline of the program that is being broadcast and that is picked up by the TV. And you seem to be saying here that the set's sound and contrast being turned all the way down, or the set unplugged, is a metaphor for the brain under general anesthesia. To me the implication then is that the "self" (or the storyline of the program) is essentially unconscious unless there is a plugged in, turned on, and properly adjusted TV to receive it and give it "life." If this metaphor should be taken as literally representative of reality, then our memories and personality traits are unconscious and incapable of expression without a living brain. Even if they still persist after death, they would not be conscious and would not in any sense constitue a person as we generally conceive of a person.

tdn
Good point. That would seem to suggest that an immortal soul is a pretty useless thing unless there is a brain to give it expression. [/B]

What MikeD said doesn't follow from the TV metaphor at all. Why on earth should the self be unconscious?? As I keep arguing the brain limits consciousness, not creates consciousness, so I do not see how you or Mike could possibly conclude that the self whilst not operating through the brain would be unconscious. It simply doesn't follow.

The storyline of as TV programme still exists even though a TV might not be tuned in.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Mike D.

tdn
That's kind of like my philosophy on past lives -- if you can't remember them, and draw wisdom from them, what use are they?


MikeD
I agree! [/B]

This has the absurd consequence that unless one at any moment is consciously remembering some past incident, then such incidents cannot have had any effect upon you. Even in this life the vast majority of things that have ever happened to us are not accessible to immediate retrieval by our memories. Indeed we may only remember the majority of things once we become detached from our brains. I suggest it's highly implausible that such events in our lives do not shape ourselves.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Even if we were to describe the mind as being caused by the brain (although I believe the use of "cause" here is technically inappropriate), this needn't have any implications that the mind has its origin in the brain. The picture on a television set is caused by its internal components. This of course doesn't mean to say that the origin of the storylines of the tv programmes being shown have their origin in the tv sets internal components! Indeed it would be preposterous to suppose they do! I believe a partial analogy can be drawn here in that it is equally ludicrous, if not more so, that the richness of our mental lives is somehow mysterious created ex nihilo by physical processes.

Exploring the television set analogy, peoples state of consciousness or mind states would correspond to the picture quality. On the other hand the essential self corresponds to the storyline. By the essential self I mean the *I*. Namely that which remains unchanged from your 5 year old self, to your sober adult self, to when you're drunk etc. It is that which makes you you even though your apparent personality, and intelligence, and interests may change radically.

Kerberos

There is one tiny little flaw with your analogy. We know for a fact that storylines exists, and we can what the storyline is and define which parts of the movie won't change, when you tamper with the television. You can not show that you have any "qualities" that doesn't change and therefore belong with your "I", nor that any such thing exists. You're simply making an unbased assertion.



As I've stated many times before, it is absolutely extraordinarily implausible that there isn't a self to which our various experiences belong, so to speak. I cannot show there is anything about the self that doesn't change, because the concept of change applies to the physical, not to the self. If it did apply to the self then there would be no enduring self, but rather selves which spontaneously cease to exist and spring into being every infinitesimal moment of our lives. Maybe not even that as I'm not sure if there can be a self at all under materialism. I'll just paste in what I've said on this subject before.

So there is no self as such, there are only mind states. Which begs the question of why you care about "your" future since "you" are continuously ceasing to exist to be replaced by another "you". And remember, you cannot appeal to the idea you a very similar person therefore it is effectively you, since mind states change quite radically, say, from when you are 7, or drunk, compared to what you are now. Why plan to get drunk if your drunk "self" is literally not the same "self" but effectively a different self?

And even if you do appeal to similar personality characteristics in order to justify you are more or less the same self, what is to distinguish you from another person who seems to be very similar to you in personality and interests etc?

And why is it prima facie more reasonable to suppose there is no enduring self? Why cannot you be the very same person when you are drunk but that you simply feel differently? Why do you suppose that in order to be the same self you must feel exactly the same at all times? Why, for example, is it not possible for your moods to fluctuate and still remain the same self??



:Originally posted by Interesting Ian

[in relation to NDEs]
For example, when one is clinically dead one shouldn't be having any experiences at all - hallucinations or not, nevermind be more consciously aware than they have ever been before.

Kerb
We don't know what people experience when they're dead Ian, People who're dead have this funny tendency to not wake up and tell about their experiences



Non-sequitur. I'm talking about experiences which are at least close to death, not actually when they're dead in the sense of a state which is quite definitely irreversible. As an aside, how can we tell when it's quite definitely irreversible??




As for experiences people have when under operation where parts of their brain is not "connected", we have no way of knowing if their experiences actually happen while under operation, or when they're waking up since we can't really talk to them when they're unconscious.



There is a lot of anecdotal evidence which suggests otherwise. There are a huge number of reports of NDE'ers reporting events occurring around them, or further afield, when they see themselves apparently dead, and hear other people declare they are dead. In addition we have deathbed visions which are exactly the same as NDEs except people really die. In such deathbed visions the person dying will often declare he can see apparitions, or the dying person will look at a particular spot as if he can see someone whom s/he recognises and often has a joyful expression on their face. Indeed, in some instances it's been reported that the people at the dying person's bed side can also see the apparitions. All this counts against your hypothesis that an NDE is all a false memory created on resuscitation.




Originally posted by Interesting Ian

But it is not entirely clear that perceptions during these OBE's are like normal perception in any case. This possibility is bolstered by a case studied in "Mindsight" by Kenneth Ring and (Sharon Cooper)? where a blind person (but not from birth) said something along the lines that it wasn't actually literally vision, but something very similar to it. Maybe the "vision" might arguably be described as an implicit awareness of ones environment. In such an out of body state it might well be that our "visual" perceptions are governed by the emotions. In other words that which we can identify with, that which has emotional resonance.

Kerb
Is that "blind sight” you're referring to?



I did not have blind sight in mind no.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

As I've stated many times before, it is absolutely extraordinarily implausible that there isn't a self to which our various experiences belong, so to speak.

Well, as it happens, you stating it no matter how many times doesn't make it more right, you know.

I cannot show there is anything about the self that doesn't change, because the concept of change applies to the physical, not to the self. If it did apply to the self then there would be no enduring self, but rather selves which spontaneously cease to exist and spring into being every infinitesimal moment of our lives.

How on earth do you make that conclusion?


Maybe not even that as I'm not sure if there can be a self at all under materialism. I'll just paste in what I've said on this subject before.

Depends on what you mean by "self". I for one consider the self to be our inherited disposition plus the sum of our experiences. Thus the self is constantly changing, but that does not mean it is not enduring, just that it is dynamic.

So there is no self as such, there are only mind states. Which begs the question of why you care about "your" future since "you" are continuously ceasing to exist to be replaced by another "you". And remember, you cannot appeal to the idea you a very similar person therefore it is effectively you, since mind states change quite radically, say, from when you are 7, or drunk, compared to what you are now. Why plan to get drunk if your drunk "self" is literally not the same "self" but effectively a different self?

The word straw man comes to mind, but anyhow, since you premise about the discontinuous self is invalid, the arguments above fall too.

*snip*

And why is it prima facie more reasonable to suppose there is no enduring self?

It is not. However, assuming a continuous self does not rule out the possibility that this self can be a property of the physical brain.

Why cannot you be the very same person when you are drunk but that you simply feel differently? Why do you suppose that in order to be the same self you must feel exactly the same at all times? Why, for example, is it not possible for your moods to fluctuate and still remain the same self??

Yes, why?


*snip*

There is a lot of anecdotal evidence which suggests otherwise. There are a huge number of reports of NDE'ers reporting events occurring around them, or further afield, when they see themselves apparently dead, and hear other people declare they are dead.

Actually, the number is not that huge. And most of thos reports are not very convincing, once you look closer.

For example, they often go something like this: "I saw myself lying on the bed with people in white coats bent over me, and my wife sat weeping on a chair." ....Uhh, yeah, that is a rather obvious scenery....

In addition we have deathbed visions which are exactly the same as NDEs except people really die. In such deathbed visions the person dying will often declare he can see apparitions, or the dying person will look at a particular spot as if he can see someone whom s/he recognises and often has a joyful expression on their face.

Honestly, what dying persons experienced before they actually died is pure guesswork. And even if they do experience what you guess at, it is not particularly likely to be real. Obviously, a dying body is in deep crisis and all kinds of hallucinations and odd effects can occur.

Indeed, in some instances it's been reported that the people at the dying person's bed side can also see the apparitions. All this counts against your hypothesis that an NDE is all a false memory created on resuscitation.

Completely irrelevant, really. And, of course totally anecdotical.




Hans

[tdn]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Indeed, in some instances it's been reported that the people at the dying person's bed side can also see the apparitions. All this counts against your hypothesis that an NDE is all a false memory created on resuscitation.

"Been reported", sure. I've known people to "report" all sorts of wonky things. Why is it that such things are never reported when witnesses are around?

And to echo MRC_Hans, NDEs are always -- ALWAYS -- reported by people whose health is in extreme jeopardy. A dying brain is likely to report less reality, not more. If the TV set is frying out and losing the picture, does the reception automatically improve?

(Brings to mind old fashioned TV sets, which, when turned off, showed a bright dot in the center for about a minute. This was not the ultimate truth of a TV show, this was the sign of a set losing power.)

One more thing -- "it's been reported that the people at the dying person's bed side can also see the apparitions" -- such people are often overly emotional. Let's face it -- grandma dying is a real strain. Are we to believe that someone experiencing this kind of trauma is reporting absolute objective reality?

[tdn]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
And why is it prima facie more reasonable to suppose there is no enduring self? Why cannot you be the very same person when you are drunk but that you simply feel differently? Why do you suppose that in order to be the same self you must feel exactly the same at all times? Why, for example, is it not possible for your moods to fluctuate and still remain the same self??

Of course you are the same person when you are drunk or stoned or seven. And of course people have moods, and yet remain essentially the same person. But these are minor changes in brain state. More major changes -- death, for instance -- have more extreme effects. In which case all bets are off.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by tdn


"Been reported", sure. I've known people to "report" all sorts of wonky things. Why is it that such things are never reported when witnesses are around?



They are as I just explained in the post you're responding to.



And to echo MRC_Hans, NDEs are always -- ALWAYS -- reported by people whose health is in extreme jeopardy.



No, this is absolutely false.

If you don't mind I don't wish to become embroiled in an argument about NDEs where the people I am discussing them with are not aware of the basic facts. I don't mean to be rude, I'd just prefer to spend time writing stuff for my forthcoming website :)

The same goes for this materialism issue. First of all, I didn't come on this thread to discuss materialism. People accuse me of turning every thread that I participate in, into a discussion about materialism. I admit it seems it turns out that way, but I don't think it's my fault! LOL

I'll just say this. Under materialism there are experiences and thoughts. Such experiences and thoughts are literally processes in the brain or its functions. In order to believe in a substantial self there has to be an experient which has these experiences and thoughts. Thus, to be compatible with materialism, the self must also be processes or functions of the brain. But even if there are such processes or functions constituting the mental implicit awareness of self over and above those processes or functions constituting "ones" thoughts and experiences, such processes will change depending upon the brain. Therefore any "self" must literally change all the time. Therefore "your" "self" of tomorrow is not literally you. Therefore there is no enduring substantial self under materialism. I'm not sure if this is particularly controversial anyway because materialists would normally say the "self" is simply the sum of "ones" thoughts and experiences.

[Kerberos]

Ian
As an aside, how can we tell when it[death]'s quite definitely irreversible??

We can't of course prove definitely that it is absolutely impossible to revive someone, but with current technology there are limits to what we can do. To the best of my knowledge (and some material I've read about organ donation) no-one who's been declared brain-dead can be revived. There are also other subtle hints that the keen observer can pick up, such as the head and the body being two different places :D

tdn
And to echo MRC_Hans, NDEs are always -- ALWAYS -- reported by people whose health is in extreme jeopardy.
Ian
No, this is absolutely false.

You mean that it's possible to have a near death experience without being near death? The mind boggles. :eek:

[tdn]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If you don't mind I don't wish to become embroiled in an argument about NDEs where the people I am discussing them with are not aware of the basic facts.

Lead me to the basic facts and I'd be glad to read them.

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


What MikeD said doesn't follow from the TV metaphor at all. Why on earth should the self be unconscious?? As I keep arguing the brain limits consciousness, not creates consciousness, so I do not see how you or Mike could possibly conclude that the self whilst not operating through the brain would be unconscious. It simply doesn't follow.

The storyline of as TV programme still exists even though a TV might not be tuned in.

Ian,

The storyline, as it is being broadcast through the atmosphere or over a cable, is not really anything that we would recognize as a TV program -until- it has been tuned into, decoded, and in a sense "brought to life" by a working TV set. I can't sit outside near a TV antenna or look at a cable and experience a TV program. In a sense, the storyline or program remains in latent form until it comes into contact with a turned on TV set.

I was not making any truth claims about the "self." It was just a thought that came to me as I thought about your metaphor. It may be that analogies and metaphors can only go so far. Rupert Sheldrake has written that he thinks memeories may be in "morphic fields" instead of being stored -in- the brain, with the brain acting as a device that tunes into the fields. I don't know whether he is right or not, but even if he is, he said in something I read once that if the memory fields persist after the death of the brain, that they would require another tuning device in the afterlife state to take the place of the brain and tune into them to make them conscious. To go back to your TV metaphor, I think one would have to say in this case that Sheldrake's fields represent the storyline, and that the self would have to be represented by some sort of afterdeath version of a TV set.

Mike

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


This has the absurd consequence that unless one at any moment is consciously remembering some past incident, then such incidents cannot have had any effect upon you. Even in this life the vast majority of things that have ever happened to us are not accessible to immediate retrieval by our memories. Indeed we may only remember the majority of things once we become detached from our brains. I suggest it's highly implausible that such events in our lives do not shape ourselves.

Ian,

I am not saying that if reincarnation is true that "past life" events would have no effect on shaping our present lives. What I think tdn is saying (and I agree with him) is that if one can't remember those events, it limits what we can learn from them (or at least prolongs the learning process). Many people who believe in reincarnation also believe that we come into our present lives with problems to work out that are the result of things that happened in one or more of our past lives. To me, not having any memory of the events that caused these problems, is similar to punishing a child without giving him any information on why he is being punished or what he could do to do better.

Mike

[tdn]

Mike, you did indeed understand what I was saying.

Originally posted by Ian
Indeed we may only remember the majority of things once we become detached from our brains. I suggest it's highly implausible that such events in our lives do not shape ourselves.

I haven't addressed this yet, but the notion that our brains hold us back from our thoughts strikes me as absurd. That's like saying that a TV set is preventing you from watching Gilligan's Island. No, in fact, it was designed to assist you in that noble endeavor.

I understand what you're saying -- that our bodies our imperfect vessels, and keep us from a true understanding of the way things really are. And it's an interesting notion. But I don't buy it. In fact, I'd say we have a much greater understanding of our universe than a common housecat (oxymoron?) would, primarlity because of our brains, not in spite of them. You ever see a cat build a bridge, or win the Nobel peace prize, or write an episode of Gilligan's Island?

(Forget that last example -- that no cat has ever written an episode of GI speaks volumes about the vast superiority of the feline mind, a subject of which any cat will be happy to remind you.)

[Darwin'sGoat]

Did I miss somewhere in the above flood of Ian-isms anyone making the point that a television signal is identifiable and can be proven to exist even when the TV is broken? Why wouldn't twins be tuned into the same channel?

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

I see a bright light and fields of magical bunnies frolicking around and smiling at me! Oh sorry false alarm! That was just a delusional false memory! Thank you rational thinking! I guess even the best of critical minds can get momentarily tricked by the malleable memory from time to time!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by !Xx+-Rational-+xX!
I see a bright light and fields of magical bunnies frolicking around and smiling at me! Oh sorry false alarm! That was just a delusional false memory! Thank you rational thinking! I guess even the best of critical minds can get momentarily tricked by the malleable memory from time to time!

LOL :D

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
LOL :D

Quoting your own puppet because I now have him on ignore Ian?

You wanna be next? I'm enjoying this feature a great deal.

Let me know when you finally write that second joke.

[Loki]

Ian,

(so much to cover...)

Maybe not even that as I'm not sure if there can be a self at all under materialism.
Yes, there can be a 'self' under materialism - just a different definition to the one you prefer. Try arguing about what the term means, rather than simply assuming that your definition of the term is obviously correct.

So there is no self as such, there are only mind states.
Depends on what yuo mean by 'self'. See above.

And even if you do appeal to similar personality characteristics in order to justify you are more or less the same self, what is to distinguish you from another person who seems to be very similar to you in personality and interests etc?
Hmmm - can I name just one thing that distinquishes me, absolutely and unequivically, from every other human on the planet? Why, yes I can Ian, and under materialism too!!! Try it....see if you can think what it might be.

And why is it prima facie more reasonable to suppose there is no enduring self?
Because there is no reliable evidence to suggest otherwise, and no single agreement amongst proponents of such a concept of just how and what it might be/mean. It's like theology - theists agree there is (at least one) god, but can't agree at all on what he/she/they/it does, means, or wants. Does life after death mean reincarnation? Some say yes, some say no. Does life after death mean punishment/reward for your actions? Some say yes, some say no. Does life after death mean you remember this life? Some say yes, some say no. Can you interact with this world from the after life? Some say yes, some say no.

Tell me Ian - just asking for an opinion, not expecting you to actually know anything - are we all equally intelligent in the afterlife? That is, is intellect (IQ, for example) an attribute of the 'eternal self'? Is it equally shared amongst all immortal selves? Or are some immortals smarter than others? Although you are clearly so much smarter than I in this mortal plane, will I jump up to become your equal in the afterlife?

Why cannot you be the very same person when you are drunk but that you simply feel differently?
But that's exactly what I would say - you are the same person when drunk, Ian, just in a different 'current state'.

Why do you suppose that in order to be the same self you must feel exactly the same at all times?
Looks like a Strawman argument to me - but of course, as you ahve claimed several times in the past you never commit logical fallacies, so I guess I must be misunderstanding you.

Why, for example, is it not possible for your moods to fluctuate and still remain the same self??
But it is. Your 'self' is the sum of your current and past states. Changing your current brain/mind state adds to your collection of states - it therefore adds to your self (that's what time does for you, Ian). The self's 'contents' change over time, the self doesn't.

Picture quality = state of mind
storyline = self.

1. state of brain
2. state of mind
3. essential self


is roughly analogical to

1. state of internal components of TV set
2. picture quality
3. storyline of programme

Where does your "behaviour" fit in this analogy - where is your decison making taking place? Tell me Ian, if you decide tomorrow to kill yourself, is that "picture quality" or "storyline"?

The storyline of as TV programme still exists even though a TV might not be tuned in.
Yet, the strange thing is, when we "turn back on" our consciousness, it resumes from where it left off. In the TV analogy, when we turn the set back on, a large part of the storyline has been missed.

Just to repeat what I said before about these forthcoming experiments. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they turn out to be a comprehensive failure. But should this transpire I certainly don't think this would mean that the OOBE during an NDE is wholly an hallucination.
Same old Ian! If we test your theory, and generate a pool of data that suggests failure, then this doesn't prove anything! On the other hand, if you can locate a pool of data (NDE anecdotes) that support your theory, then skeptics are simply blindly ignoring the data.

Give me a consistent theory, give me some reliable data, and I'll listen.

You've got a conclusion (had it since you were a really young child, haven't you?), now all you need to do is find the data. Good luck.

Kerberos wrote : You mean that it's possible to have a near death experience without being near death?
Oh yes - just another example of terminology-on-the-run.

[Darwin'sGoat]

Originally posted by Loki
Tell me Ian, if you decide tomorrow to kill yourself, is that "picture quality" or "storyline"?


I would vote for picture quality.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Loki
Tell me Ian, if you decide tomorrow to kill yourself, is that "picture quality" or "storyline"?

It's a happy ending.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by tdn

I haven't addressed this yet, but the notion that our brains hold us back from our thoughts strikes me as absurd. That's like saying that a TV set is preventing you from watching Gilligan's Island. No, in fact, it was designed to assist you in that noble endeavor.

I understand what you're saying -- that our bodies our imperfect vessels, and keep us from a true understanding of the way things really are. And it's an interesting notion. But I don't buy it. In fact, I'd say we have a much greater understanding of our universe than a common housecat (oxymoron?) would, primarlity because of our brains, not in spite of them. You ever see a cat build a bridge, or win the Nobel peace prize, or write an episode of Gilligan's Island?

(Forget that last example -- that no cat has ever written an episode of GI speaks volumes about the vast superiority of the feline mind, a subject of which any cat will be happy to remind you.) [/B]

I'm not sure you understand the TV set metaphor very well. Whilst the self functions though the brain, the more processing the brain is able to do, the less limiting the brain is. So one could not expect a common housecat to be as intelligent as a human being! I also supect that whether we are incarnated as a human being, or a cat etc will depend on how developed the self is. Anyway, here is what I wrote before on why we need brains.

Many of you will know that I do not favour the hypothesis that the brain generates the mind or consciousness. This of course is not to deny that brain states may not in an appropriate sense "cause" particular mind states, it's just that mind states do not originate from brain states. As I have put it before:

The fact that states of "A" may be correlated with "particular states of "B", means neither that "A" and "B" are one and the same thing, nor does it entail that "B" originates from "A", or indeed "A" from "B". It could be that both "A" and "B" both independently are generated by "C". Or it could be the case that although states of "B" are modified by states of "A", "B" ultimately originates from "C".

However, if the brain only modifies consciousness or minds, rather than being the progenitor of the mind, the question then arises as to why we need brains at all.

The first thing to recognise here is that processes within the brain are akin to any information processing system. As with any such information processing system there are architectural constraints and these serve to limit the mind so we only have access to those perceptions that follow the familiar and regular patterns that we associate with the physical world. This then allows us to function proficiently whilst we subsist in this empirical reality.

Now when the mind operates in detachment from the brain, when it is temporarily or permanently disembodied, then its processing is released from the constraining influence of the arrays of primitive processing units (essentially the brain). It will then have access to all other perceptions apart from our everyday perceptions. Those other perceptions will be driven by some other "engine", and the person may seem to be passing through other worlds. This would be broadly consistent with the anecdotal experiences of some out-of-body experiences, especially near-death experiences - and indeed with reportedly channeled descriptions from the dead, as well as with traditional accounts such as those found in the "Tibetan Book of the Dead.

[voidx]

Posted by Interesting Ian
Indeed, in some instances it's been reported that the people at the dying person's bed side can also see the apparitions. All this counts against your hypothesis that an NDE is all a false memory created on resuscitation.

Well this is easily testable. Make it a requirement that video footage be recorded at bedsides during crisis moments. And see if the apparitions show up on the video. Or do apparitions not fall within the optical spectrum that video camera's record? Hmm that can't be because many seem to think they show up on 35mm film all the time. It hardly counts against much of anything until there is something at least somewhat verfiable to go on.


I'm not sure you understand the TV set metaphor very well.

Nobody seems to, except for you apparently. I gave several in depth attempts at understanding it as well. I believe in the end you figured out it was because I was a blithering idiot or something to that affect no? :rolleyes:

On a side not, Towelie, someone above mentioned NDE's just being memories or "Dreams". Are you going to let them get away with that. All super superior intellectual materialist skeptics know dreams don't exist right? That their all just false memories right! Quick quick stop this irrational behaviour, save us all!! Hurry, soak up this woo-woo irrationality with your super superior materialist absorbancy!!

[tdn]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I'm not sure you understand the TV set metaphor very well.

I understand it just fine, but what I don't get is your assertion that our brains limit our understanding as opposed to enhancing it.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by tdn


I understand it just fine, but what I don't get is your assertion that our brains limit our understanding as opposed to enhancing it.

Did you read the part of my post where it was explained why we need brains? If you read it and understand it, then you'll have the answer to your question.

[tdn]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Did you read the part of my post where it was explained why we need brains? If you read it and understand it, then you'll have the answer to your question.

Fair enough. Just mark me down in the "Strongy disagree" column, then.

[showme2]

Some of you pseudo-intellectuals have got serious problems with the "know it all" syndrome !

"A blow to the head results in total loss of conciousness"
So how do you know this ? It APPEARS so to someone else observing, and that is all you can say with certitude.

Someone in a vegetative coma similarly shows all the signs of being totally unaware of their surroundings - i.e. unconcious. Yet we know from a few who have come out of such a state that they were in fact fully aware of everything going on around them, but simply incapable of responding.

If I have learned nothing else in my 59 years, it is to beware of those who think they know all of the answers.

Wasn't it Einstein who declared "You will never get energy from the atom" before the first A-bomb was exploded ?
And, with great respect, I haven't seen too many Einsteins on this forum. (But perhaps I am not wise enough to appreciate their vast knowledge and certitude.)

"He who knows not, and knows he knows not, is teachable.
He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool"

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by showme2
Some of you pseudo-intellectuals have got serious problems with the "know it all" syndrome !

"A blow to the head results in total loss of conciousness"
So how do you know this ?...
If someone said this then atribute the quote, if not then:
"STRAWMAN ALLERT"

[showme2]

kerberos


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by showme2
Some of you pseudo-intellectuals have got serious problems with the "know it all" syndrome !

"A blow to the head results in total loss of conciousness"
So how do you know this ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If someone said this then atribute the quote, if not then:
"STRAWMAN ALLERT"

..............................................


There you go with your unsupported cliches !
Strawman my ass !

And a true intellectual could properly spell both "attribute" and "alert" !

Got a serious answer ?

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by showme2

...It APPEARS so to someone else observing, and that is all you can say with certitude.

Someone in a vegetative coma similarly shows all the signs of being totally unaware of their surroundings - i.e. unconcious. Yet we know from a few who have come out of such a state that they were in fact fully aware of everything going on around them, but simply incapable of responding.
Do you have a reference to that claim. Bear in mind that I'm not saying that it's impossible that some or all people in comas are conscious, simply that I'm not believing it without some evidence that they wake up with memory of what happened while they were in coma, and that this memory can't be explained by dreaming, false meories and such.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by showme2
kerberos


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by showme2
Some of you pseudo-intellectuals have got serious problems with the "know it all" syndrome !

"A blow to the head results in total loss of conciousness"
So how do you know this ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If someone said this then atribute the quote, if not then:
"STRAWMAN ALLERT"

..............................................


There you go with your unsupported cliches !
Strawman my ass !
Unsupported cliches? I'm not the one who claims that somebody said something, without providing evidence that anybody said it.
Originally posted by showme2

And a true intellectual could properly spell both "attribute" and "alert" !
And how many foreign languages do you speak? I normally use word to correct spelling mistakes, but I just reinstaled windows and I haven't reinstalled Word yet.
Originally posted by showme2

Got a serious answer ?
Sure, just make a serious post.

[showme2]

kerberos

quote : (first post of this thread)
"Mr Sensible
New Member

Registered: Sep 2003
Location: California
Posts: 12

"We know that at death the brain ceases to function. Therefore, in order for there to be a "life after death", it is necessary that consciousness can, in principle, exist independently of the brain.

But this possibility is rendered extremely implausible when we consider that a severe blow to the head, or other injuries, will cause that person to lose consciousness. Is not the inescapable conclusion that the brain must therefore cause consciousness? "

------------------------------------------

Does that answer your first question ?

[showme2]

kerberos

To answer your second question ....

Just one - French. (And lawyer language, and bureaucrat language, but they don't count!)

Don't need to speak any others because English is the first language of the European community, and is also used by the majority of the inhabitants of our "shoulder to shoulder" allies in the good old USA.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by showme2
kerberos

quote : (first post of this thread)
"Mr Sensible
New Member

Registered: Sep 2003
Location: California
Posts: 12

"We know that at death the brain ceases to function. Therefore, in order for there to be a "life after death", it is necessary that consciousness can, in principle, exist independently of the brain.

But this possibility is rendered extremely implausible when we consider that a severe blow to the head, or other injuries, will cause that person to lose consciousness. Is not the inescapable conclusion that the brain must therefore cause consciousness? "

------------------------------------------

Does that answer your first question ?
Yes it does, now for my hopefully serious, if misspelled ;) answer:
I think you're exagerating strongly, by claiming this is evidence of a pseudo-intelectual know it all syndrome. I have never been "uncoscious" due to a blow in the head, so I really can't vouch for whether a person in that state really has no consciousness, or at least no memory of consciousness. However even if a person in that state really is consciouss, which I'm not convinced is the case, it's hardly a symptom of a know it all syndrome, but more likely a understandable mistake since the state is generally known as unconciousness.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by showme2
kerberos

To answer your second question ....

Just one - French.
And you probably make more mistakes in French than in English. The fact that my spelling in English isn't very good doesn't mean I'm dumb, simply that spelling wasn't the main focus of the English lessons in school. Supported by my huge ego :D I'll dare guess that my English, though not necessarily my spelling, is better than your French. *crossing fingers hoping you haven't lived in France or something*
P.S. Just installed Word so it's actually possible that there aren't any spelling errors in this post :eek:

[showme2]

Originally posted by Kerberos

And you probably make more mistakes in French than in English. The fact that my spelling in English isn't very good doesn't mean I'm dumb, simply that spelling wasn't the main focus of the English lessons in school. Supported by my huge ego :D I'll dare guess that my English, though not necessarily my spelling, is better than your French. *crossing fingers hoping you haven't lived in France or something*
P.S. Just installed Word so it's actually possible that there aren't any spelling errors in this post :eek:

Kerberos, you are absolutely RIGHT !
(Don't take it too seriously. I was only having a little fun winding you up. Unfair - sorry !)

As for living in France, good God, I would never do that. Lovely country, but it's full of French people !

[epepke]

Strange question.

I'll eventually die. I guess that if I'm conscious after I die, then I'll probably notice it, because otherwise, what's the point of being conscious? In any event, I'm not in that much of a hurry, and I'm not counting on it.

[showme2]

Originally posted by epepke
Strange question.
I'll eventually die. I guess that if I'm conscious after I die, then I'll probably notice it, because otherwise, what's the point of being conscious? In any event, I'm not in that much of a hurry, and I'm not counting on it.

Yes, you certainly WILL eventually die. We all do - "death and taxes" etc.
But you'll probably NOT notice it until someone tells you what has happened, because you are not expecting anything.

As for not being in a hurry, nor are any of us ... but nobody is guaranteed tomorrow.

Look at it this way ... even if the sceptics are right, us "woo woos" are never going to know that we were wrong ! ! !

[voidx]

Originally posted by showme2


Yes, you certainly WILL eventually die. We all do - "death and taxes" etc.
But you'll probably NOT notice it until someone tells you what has happened, because you are not expecting anything.

As for not being in a hurry, nor are any of us ... but nobody is guaranteed tomorrow.

Look at it this way ... even if the sceptics are right, us "woo woos" are never going to know that we were wrong ! ! !
Ummm, if nobody notices, then who tells them? If I die physically, yet my consciousness lives on, yet is unaware of the fact that its dead, then who clues it in? And please don't say God :). I just see it as a tad hypocritical that you criticize Mr. Sensible for his assumtion that we have no consciousness period when we are knocked "unconscious", yet go ahead and make the above assumption yourself. Just an observation.

[showme2]

Originally posted by voidx

Ummm, if nobody notices, then who tells them? If I die physically, yet my consciousness lives on, yet is unaware of the fact that its dead, then who clues it in? And please don't say God :). I just see it as a tad hypocritical that you criticize Mr. Sensible for his assumtion that we have no consciousness period when we are knocked "unconscious", yet go ahead and make the above assumption yourself. Just an observation.

Don't really follow the second part of your argument - sorry!

Should have made clear that I was addressing sceptics who don't expect to be anywhere when they die, and therefore won't know where the hell they are.

Who tells them? Well, us "woo woos" who will be there of course, because we will know where both we AND they are.:-)

Don't say God ?????? Naw, get real. He wouldn't waste HIS time on mere sceptics would he? He'll DELEGATE the job of trying to convince them they are "dead" (joke! joke!) Nobody knows what - if anything - God is.

("Don't say God" ? Sounds a bit like "Next one to say Jehovah gets stoned to death" - ANOTHER joke, from "The Life of Brian" - but it's probably a meaningless joke to anyone outside the UK.)

Seriously, we will all discover the truth in a relatively short time - or not, if the sceptics are right.
Time passes very quickly, and seems to go faster as we get older.

NOBODY has got all of the answers to the intriguing question of survival/extinction. And, if they think they have - either way - they can't prove it.
We all make our own judgments on the evidence we can obtain, and they are coloured by what we are prepared to accept as "evidence".
The kind of evidence sceptics want - something which cannot, however much reasonable probability is stretched to breaking point - be explained in ANY other way will probably never be available.
And, at the end of the day, there is always the old telepathy chestnut to explain everything ... notwithstanding that this explains one mystery with another.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than ever were dreamt of in your philosophy" ... or words to similar effect.

See ya over there. It'll come quicker than you think !

[Explorer]

Why should we assume that each of us possesses a personal consciousness? What evidence exists that points that we all enjoy a self-sufficient consciousness? We surely simply assume this as a fact since we have all felt it from birth and it does not appear to be shared with anyone else. Some above have used the analogy of a radio or TV signal with the brain as the receiver, and perhaps this is nearer to the truth.

When we suffer a blow to the head and become "unconscious" the receiver brain may be temporarily unable to process the signal until a repair process is completed.

Interestingly, if we follow the logic of this hypothesis, then consciousness may pervade the whole universe. It may even be a property of the universe, like gravity or electro-magnetic forces, and be part of the essential element for organic life to exist and flourish.

Death of the body like other natural processes, is "change". Simply a sudden change in the arrangement of atoms and molecules triggered by natural forces. These atoms and molecules are re-used again, in the fullness of time and will form part of future new organic life.

So to answer the question "Is there life after death?" will depend on a narrow definition of "self", which has been debated above. For me, and I can speculate as well as the rest of you, the self does not survive along with form image of our body. A common consciousness though may continue and "waits" for another receiver to plug into.

[Soapy Sam]

If "after death", then presumably "before birth"- but then where are all the new souls coming from? (There used to be a lot less people around). So are souls being subdivided, so we now operate on only 0.00001 of a Palaeolithic soul per person, or , given the much touted 21gram (weight loss on death) figure, is the mass of the universe increasing steadily as new souls are spontaneously created?

Fred Hoyle, come home, all is explained.

[Mr Sensible]

Originally posted by voidx

Ummm, if nobody notices, then who tells them? If I die physically, yet my consciousness lives on, yet is unaware of the fact that its dead, then who clues it in? And please don't say God :). I just see it as a tad hypocritical that you criticize Mr. Sensible for his assumtion that we have no consciousness period when we are knocked "unconscious", yet go ahead and make the above assumption yourself. Just an observation.

Yes indeed, poor Mr Sensible :(

Yes guys, I'm still reading this thread with much interest. I've now changed my mind thanks to "Interesting Ian's" contributions. Bearing in mind his TV set metaphor, I now believe that it is possible to explain away the apparent dependence of the mind on the brain. But I still say it is vastly more simple to suppose that mind is created by the brain. I think this mysterious non-physical soul operating through the brain is possible but rather fanciful. :)

[voidx]

Originally posted by showme2
Don't really follow the second part of your argument - sorry!

Sensible assumed we lose consciousness when knocked out, you assume a skeptic would have no comprehension if he suddenly found himself in the afterlife he wasn't expecting.


Should have made clear that I was addressing sceptics who don't expect to be anywhere when they die, and therefore won't know where the hell they are.

Who tells them? Well, us "woo woos" who will be there of course, because we will know where both we AND they are.:-)

You assume believers will get a magical orientation book when they pass simply because they are believers, and that us skeptics will not, and therefore you friendly believers will have to inform us of where we are. I'm sure we'd be equally as confused as a)we just died, a rather traumtic experience I would assume and b)no one has ANY idea what happens to us if there is an afterlife. Believers have no more idea what will "happen" when we pass than we do. Also it implies that skeptics have no idea what the afterlife is about, this isn't true, me merely don't think its the case, so if we suddenly found ourselves in it, while yes perhaps being in denial or rather surprised, we'd have just as much of a chance of knowing where we were than believers.


Don't say God ?????? Naw, get real. He wouldn't waste HIS time on mere sceptics would he? He'll DELEGATE the job of trying to convince them they are "dead" (joke! joke!) Nobody knows what - if anything - God is.

Exactly, because no one knows what God is, or if he is or is not, I find it highly disingenious when people attribute things to him, like they understand him. If God does exist, or some determining force in the universe, I would argue that it would be very likely beyond our comprehension, so to know its "will" or to attribute effects and events to him/it is just lazy, in my opinion.


Seriously, we will all discover the truth in a relatively short time - or not, if the sceptics are right.
Time passes very quickly, and seems to go faster as we get older.

NOBODY has got all of the answers to the intriguing question of survival/extinction. And, if they think they have - either way - they can't prove it.
We all make our own judgments on the evidence we can obtain, and they are coloured by what we are prepared to accept as "evidence".

On this we agree.


The kind of evidence sceptics want - something which cannot, however much reasonable probability is stretched to breaking point - be explained in ANY other way will probably never be available.
And, at the end of the day, there is always the old telepathy chestnut to explain everything ... notwithstanding that this explains one mystery with another.

Again agreed. Many "believers" make the same mistake they accuse skeptics of. "Why is science and materialism so utterly convincing?", and then they go off on how all these events are much more likely to be telepathy, or what have you. I say...oops :). And yes, skeptics do this too sometimes, nobodies perfect.


See ya over there. It'll come quicker than you think !

Perhaps, but in my mind, probably not :).

[voidx]

Originally posted by Mr Sensible


Yes indeed, poor Mr Sensible :(

Yes guys, I'm still reading this thread with much interest. I've now changed my mind thanks to "Interesting Ian's" contributions. Bearing in mind his TV set metaphor, I now believe that it is possible to explain away the apparent dependence of the mind on the brain. But I still say it is vastly more simple to suppose that mind is created by the brain. I think this mysterious non-physical soul operating through the brain is possible but rather fanciful. :)
How utterly sensible of you Mr Sensible :D.

[showme2]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
given the much touted 21gram (weight loss on death) figure, is the mass of the universe increasing .....

As a so-called "believer" - I hate that term; reminds me of that stupid Monkees song every time it is used - I wouldn't pay too much attention to the 21 gram weight loss on death.

If the soul exists, it is not a physical component and I therefore cannot see how it could have physical weight. Besides, such a trivial weight loss can be explained in several other ways.

(Incidentally ... nice to see this forum working again. I haven't been able to access it for days!)

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by showme2


As a so-called "believer" - I hate that term; reminds me of that stupid Monkees song every time it is used - I wouldn't pay too much attention to the 21 gram weight loss on death.

(snipped)

Cheer up sleepy Jean! Oh what can it mean to a daydream believer and a homecoming queen!

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/9847/daydream.html

[showme2]

Yes, Suezoled - that's the one !

Crap song, crap band.

[Loki]

showme2,

Crap song, crap band.
I agree completely with everything you say here. Everything. Everything single damn thing.

[showme2]

... except that I got it totally wrong !

The song was actually "I'm a believer", not "Sweet Dream Believer".

But no matter - same band, and they were still crap !

[Loki]

showme2,

... except that I got it totally wrong !

The song was actually "I'm a believer", not "Sweet Dream Believer".

But no matter - same band, and they were still crap !
And I still agree with you - this is becoming a habit!!

[showme2]

Yeah, Loki. It is getting a bit worrying, all of this concensus.

It's 1.45am where I am, and I'm going to bed. (Got a business to run in the morning.)

Goodnight !

[crocodile deathroll]

Greetings: I am new to this thread so I allow me to reply to the first entry

Originally posted by Mr Sensible
We hear a lot from the believers about mediums, near-death experiences, reincarnation reseach, various paranormal phenomena, all of which they argue strongly suggest that we survive the death of our bodies.

Near death experiences I treat as a bit of a red herring, I have found no conclusive evidence that NDEs are evidence of any form of life after death and are at best very elaborate hallucinations.
Reincarnation research is again barking up the wrong tree and are just relying on very thin evidence of past life memories under so called hypnosis etc.
It is questionable whether reincarnation qualifies a "paranormal" phenomena, because I do know I have lived at least one life. I may well of lived others who knows? maybe I have who knows. It is not possible for anyone to be absolutely sure and IMO the burden of proof the it pretty mutual. With ghosts on the other hand, no one has taken off from base zero to prove the existence of even one solitary ghost to me. I think the burden of proof is on the claimant.


But regardless of the merits or otherwise of these various types of "evidence", it seems to be perfectly clear that the scientific evidence demonstrates that "life after death" is absolutely impossible. Let's just consider the overwhelming evidence.

If is was absolutely impossible at any point of time after our death, then with the laws of nature before our birth being identical then it should also be impossible after any point of time before our birth. So we paradoxically should not be here at all.



We know that at death the brain ceases to function. Therefore, in order for there to be a "life after death", it is necessary that consciousness can, in principle, exist independently of the brain.

All the disintegration of the brain proves is that it obliterates the memories of your current life. It does not explain why your individual personality favored one brain over another when you had your first conscious experience


But this possibility is rendered extremely implausible when we consider that a severe blow to the head, or other injuries, will cause that person to lose consciousness. Is not the inescapable conclusion that the brain must therefore cause consciousness? If consciousness can simply disappear with a blow to the head, what on earth makes us imagine that consciousness can somehow exist with the death of the brain?? :eek:

If we lose consciousness indefinitely then we lose our sense of time 10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^100 years or even infinity may pass and you will not be the slightest bit aware of it. Now since that brain will never regain consciousness then why not those information processes that booted your sense of self into existence emulated by another brain? after all brains are very common commodes.



If that were not bad enough, it is known that particular injuries to certain parts of the brain effect consciousness in well known predictable ways. For example the capacity to understand written words, or spoken words, or the capacity to speak etc, are impaired or even eliminated with injuries to certain regions of the brain.

Bottom up process gave the capacity to acquire language. You could of been adopted by Mongolians and only spoken Mongolian and only taught the skill of yak herding. Now your brain would be useless for the purposes you use it for now. But it would still be you; you would still feel just as conscious and self aware but only thinking in Mongolian with very limited life skills.



Various drugs such as mescalin, LSD, heroin, opium and even alcohol and caffeine affect to varying degrees a person's impulses, dispositions, and attitudes.

That just demonstrates how your sense of self in inextricably linked and bound to the brain until it is totally destroyed. When your brain is dead, then you wont even be a little impaired by LSD, heroin, opium and even alcohol and caffeine, but all memories and acquired skills of your current life would be obliterated and you will forget that you were ever even born at all in the first place.
When you consider the odds of your existence when your father who in his lifetime produced 2 trillion sperm and your mother was born with 1 million eggs, you are here in spite of those slim odds. Do you ever ponder about those 2,000,000,000,000*1,000,000*1,000,000,000 people that could of been here but did not win the lottery of life? The chances of been born in the first place it appears to be extremely slim. Unless of course there is a principle where you are not the slightest be a aware of the trillions of failed attempts to exist. You may begin you life by being initially one with trillions of potential brains and billions of fetal brains all at once until you randomly switch to just one of them for the duration of the life of that brain. This may explain why you are here in spite of those exponential odds. IMHO this is good mechanism to explain away this so called "miracle of life". It is really no miracle that we are here at all. We are inevitable and not contingent.



I could go on and on. But I think it is very clear from what I have said that it is abundantly evident that consciousness is absolutely dependent upon the brain, and they can be no hope for a post-mortem existence.

My only puzzlement is why anyone should think otherwise? Any suggestions anybody?

It is no doubt abundantly evident that you will not retain any of your memories in this life will be obliterated. I think is does pour cold water all those believers in the Christian afterlife models and a few others but that all.
I think of the Brain in terms of a capital "B". That is the universal genetic blueprint for the Brain. That will still be around after you die whether you believe on some form of afterlife or not.
There is only evidence for a limited models of afterlife for the reasons provided.

CDR

[Interesting Ian]

Mr Sensible is my sock puppet! :D

[crocodile deathroll]

originally posted by Mr Sensible

I could go on and on. But I think it is very clear from what I have said that it is abundantly evident that consciousness is absolutely dependent upon the brain, and they can be no hope for a post-mortem existence.

My only puzzlement is why anyone should think otherwise? Any suggestions anybody?


I have just made some editing adjustments as I let too much time to alapse on my last post. So I made a few minor corrections.

There is no doubt you made it abundantly evident that you will not retain any of your memories in this life and as such will be obliterated, that is common knowledge in mainstream science. I am sure it does pour cold water all those believers in the Christian afterlife models and a few others but that's all.
I tend to think of the Brain in terms of a capital "B". That is the universal genetic blueprint for the Brain. That will still be around after you die whether you believe on some form of afterlife or not. So it may well be possible for you to be reborn in another life as there is no one or thing that can remind you that you have already lived your one life, and why just stop at one?
This is only evidence for a limited number of afterlife models for the reasons provided.

With the total obliteration of memory before birth and after death I think absolute knowledge in this area is just not possible.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Mr Sensible is my sock puppet! :D
Yes he is, Ian, and although I admire your honesty in admitting this, I must say that this sort of post is disturbing.
Yes indeed, poor Mr Sensible

Yes guys, I'm still reading this thread with much interest. I've now changed my mind thanks to "Interesting Ian's" contributions. Bearing in mind his TV set metaphor, I now believe that it is possible to explain away the apparent dependence of the mind on the brain. But I still say it is vastly more simple to suppose that mind is created by the brain. I think this mysterious non-physical soul operating through the brain is possible but rather fanciful.
You actually make a sock puppet who is designed to praise you? How in the world can that be satisfying to you? Is this some sort of fantasy world that you create where many posters respect you (and if they don't you will make some who do)? Ian, you are very sad. It is a shame that such an educated person can fall to such egocentric despair. Get some help, lad. You are too young to be so old.

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by Tricky

Yes he is, Ian, and although I admire your honesty in admitting this, I must say that this sort of post is disturbing.

You actually make a sock puppet who is designed to praise you? How in the world can that be satisfying to you? Is this some sort of fantasy world that you create where many posters respect you (and if they don't you will make some who do)? Ian, you are very sad. It is a shame that such an educated person can fall to such egocentric despair. Get some help, lad. You are too young to be so old.

Looks like he prerfers to design one with brass buttons on it so he can punch himself in the face with it.

CDR

[Loki]

Mr Rarely Interesting And Almost Never Sensible Ian,

Mr Sensible is my sock puppet!
You know, when Mr Sensible opened the thread my first thought on reading the opening post was "he's really trying to oversimplify the discussion into a straight 'black/white' argument - Ian's gonna run with his patented (and tedious) 'prove it's impossible' line on this one". Sure enough, Ian set up the staw man and then knocked it down - with a little help from showme2, who took Mr Sensible to task for his unskeptic-like statements of 'fact'.

Here's an idea for you Ian - rather than creating cardboard cut-out skeptics that you can knock over (well, wrestle to a draw), why not create a sock puppet that argues a good skeptical point of view? Better still, drop the sock puppets, and try (just once) to post the opposing point of view - you know, sort of show that you understand it.

Oh, and I guess your "I comprehensively won the I Ching debate" claim may be true, because you simply refuse to respond to anything you can't or don't want to answer. Kinda makes it easy to win, doesn't it?

[Kerberos]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Mr Sensible is my sock puppet!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tricky

Yes he is, Ian, and although I admire your honesty in admitting this, I must say that this sort of post is disturbing.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes indeed, poor Mr Sensible

Yes guys, I'm still reading this thread with much interest. I've now changed my mind thanks to "Interesting Ian's" contributions. Bearing in mind his TV set metaphor, I now believe that it is possible to explain away the apparent dependence of the mind on the brain. But I still say it is vastly more simple to suppose that mind is created by the brain. I think this mysterious non-physical soul operating through the brain is possible but rather fanciful.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You actually make a sock puppet who is designed to praise you? How in the world can that be satisfying to you? Is this some sort of fantasy world that you create where many posters respect you (and if they don't you will make some who do)? Ian, you are very sad. It is a shame that such an educated person can fall to such egocentric despair. Get some help, lad. You are too young to be so old.

I don't know, considering how weak his TV-anology is, I think it's impresive that he can convince even himself that it's a good anology. :D

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Tricky

Yes he is, Ian, and although I admire your honesty in admitting this, I must say that this sort of post is disturbing.

You actually make a sock puppet who is designed to praise you? How in the world can that be satisfying to you? Is this some sort of fantasy world that you create where many posters respect you (and if they don't you will make some who do)? Ian, you are very sad. It is a shame that such an educated person can fall to such egocentric despair. Get some help, lad. You are too young to be so old.

Hell, I only said it for a laugh! Just to see if anyone had the remotest suspicion "Mr Sensible" was me. But no, I give massive clues away, but still no-one suspects LOL

You take life too seriously Tricky.

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by Kerberos
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Mr Sensible is my sock puppet!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I don't know, considering how weak his TV-anology is, I think it's impresive that he can convince even himself that it's a good anology. :D

The computer operating system analogy is a better one and is the one I use occasionally, but I did like the TV analogy when I was a gullible teenager.

CDR

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll


The computer operating system analogy is a better one and is the one I use occasionally, but I did like the TV analogy when I was a gullible teenager.

CDR

The computer operating system analogy is advocating functionalism. That is to say it simply ignores phenomenal consciousness. The TV analogy is looking at the real facts, acknowledging there is a non-physical self.

Anyone preferring the the computer analogy to the TV analogy is simply rejecting the existence of that which is most obviously exists; namely conscious experiences.

I suspect you've never understood this and, like other materialists, you simply fail to understand the issues.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


The computer operating system analogy is advocating functionalism. That is to say it simply ignores phenomenal consciousness. The TV analogy is looking at the real facts, acknowledging there is a non-physical self.
Which is unlike the existence of a storyline not actually a fact, but rather an unsupported assertion. Hence the weakness of the anology.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kerberos

Which is unlike the existence of a storyline not actually a fact, but rather an unsupported assertion. Hence the weakness of the anology.

It's an immediately experienced reality. We are implicitly aware of our own consciousnesses. Indeed the reality of our own consciousnesses is the only thing we do truly know!

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


It's an immediately experienced reality. We are implicitly aware of our own consciousnesses. Indeed the reality of our own consciousnesses is the only thing we do truly know!
yes consciousness is, but were not debating the existence of a consciousness, but of an non-physical, unchanging consciousness or "I". It is a fact that storylines don't change while you have absolutely no basis for making a similar claim about the "I". Hence the fallacy of the analogy

[Kerberos]

Oops, tried to edit my previous post.

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


The computer operating system analogy is advocating functionalism. That is to say it simply ignores phenomenal consciousness. The TV analogy is looking at the real facts, acknowledging there is a non-physical self.

Anyone preferring the the computer analogy to the TV analogy is simply rejecting the existence of that which is most obviously exists; namely conscious experiences.

I suspect you've never understood this and, like other materialists, you simply fail to understand the issues.

Why I think the TV analogy is such a bad analogy is because all the images you observe on your TV are received from an external transmitter maybe from a nearby television station. So if you have a dream one night of being in Africa being chased by elephants then those images our not sourced from your brain (sic), but beamed from some external source from outside.
Where is that source? I never thought African elephants such amazing powers of mental telepathy :lol2:
(Sorry, could not resist that little straw "elephant" line)

The computer analogy is far more sensible because it is like the imformation the generated that imagery is only retrieved from your hard drive and not beamed in from outside.

CDR

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll


Why I think the TV analogy is such a bad analogy is because all the images you observe on your TV are received from an external transmitter maybe from a nearby television station. So if you have a dream one night of being in Africa being chased by elephants then those images our not sourced from your brain sic but beam from some external source from outside.
Where is that source? I never thought African elephants such powers of mental telepathy :lol2:
The computer analogy is far more sensible because it is like imagery that is only sourced from your hard drive and not beamed in from outside.

CDR

Oh God!! :hb:

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It's an immediately experienced reality. We are implicitly aware of our own consciousnesses. Indeed the reality of our own consciousnesses is the only thing we do truly know!
Implicitly aware of what? This is why skeptics have such disagreement with you. You state that something exists "implicitly" and that we are stupid for not agreeing to the existance of something you refuse to describe.

I think you should try to be more plicit.

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Oh God!! :hb:

You still have not answered my question who or what is sending your conscious experience when you claim your brain acts as a television receiver?
And where is it coming from?

CDR

[allanb]

Originally posted by extra sensory potato
apparantly, and i do not know how true this is, every human body loses exactly 21 grams at the moment of death. In order to believe this, it would be necessary to believe that a large number of dead human bodies (enough to constitute a fair sample) had been weighed just before death and again just after death. Does anyone seriously think this could be true? "Are you about to die, Granny? Hang on until we put you on the scales."

And all with an accuracy of ±1 gram.

[TheBoyPaj]

"Oh, by the way Granny. Please hold on to your fluids".


(I'm very, very sorry) :rr: