By Mano Singham
This brings us back to the whole problem of what constitutes proof in such cases. The negative is particularly tricky. As far as I can see, to prove that life after death does not exist, the only thing we can have is the absence of proof that life after death does exist. I cannot see how there could be any other kind of proof for such a thing and would be genuinely interested in hearing from anyone (especially from those who do believe in the afterlife) what kind of evidence would convince them beyond a shadow of a doubt that no afterlife existed.
As far as I can tell, the very fact that there has been no convincing proof for thousands of years that life exists after death is all the proof we are ever going to have that it does not exist. So in my opinion, having convincing proof that there is no life after death would not change people's behavior much, since that is pretty much the state of affairs that currently exists. People may say that they believe in it but they really have no basis for believing it and I suspect that its absence would not, deep down, really surprise them. It is only having convincing proof that the afterlife does exist that would change anything dramatically.
Notice that I say 'convincing' proof. There are people who claim to have had near-death experiences where they saw something of the after life. Others claim to talk to or even see dead people. But none of these things really constitute proof because they are all individual reports in the absence of corroborating witnesses. There is a whole range of completely natural explanations that can explain the testimonies of such people, from dreams to hallucinations to misunderstandings to lying.
A real proof of the existence of the afterlife would have to consist of something incontrovertible, that simply could not be denied. If asked to be more specific, I would say that it would have to consist (say) of an event in which someone who was well known and whom we know was definitely dead (say Albert Einstein) appeared in public and spoke to a large number of people who had no vested interest in collectively lying. There would also have to be tangible evidence of the event occurring. Furthermore, to rule out any chance of fraud or misunderstanding, this dead person should promise to reappear at a designated time and place under conditions that rule out trickery so that any and all skeptics could be on hand to check the phenomenon out. Albert should also be able to bring along other well known people from the world beyond, like say Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King. If something like that happened, I think everyone would be convinced.
We have never had anything even close to such a level of proof. So basically, the current state of affairs is such that there has been no convincing proof of the existence of an afterlife. That means that we have all the proof we can possibly get that there is no afterlife.
The only way that people can sustain a belief in the afterlife given the current absence of any evidence in its favor is to argue that there must be an impenetrable barrier that prevents any kind of communication at all between the afterlife world and this one, with no exceptions. In other words, there is a one-time opening between the two worlds that allows the souls or spirits of dead people to cross over but the door closes immediately afterwards preventing any return or communication. But this implies that everyone who claims to speak with the dead is either a fraud or delusional and that all the supposed encounters that people claim to have had with the dead are false. So we are back to having zero evidence for the existence of an afterlife.
If we want to believe at least some of the reports of dead people having communicated with the living, then we have to allow just some people to be able to speak to just a few of the dead. That means the barrier separating the two worlds can be crossed and this raises a whole host of problems. Why is it that the dead don't contact us more often? Why doesn't Thomas Jefferson drop by for regular chats and maybe give the current occupant of the White House some desperately needed advice on what the US Constitution says? Why don't all murdered people whose deaths were unsolved come back and tell us who their killers were?
In fact, believing in an afterlife is much harder than believing in a god. After all, with god, one is presumably dealing with a single entity. People always have the option of assigning inscrutability to god's actions and say that for reasons beyond our ken, god has chosen to keep his/her existence unproven except for highly oblique hints.
But with the afterlife, if it exists, there must be billions of dead souls out there. It is hard to argue that all of them are determined to prevent us from finding out for sure that they exist. Why would they care? Is it a crime in that world for someone to show themselves openly in our world? Is this other world like a prison in which just a few dead people are given permission to occasionally speak to a few living people under extremely controlled circumstances?
Given the overwhelming logical difficulties with postulating the existence of such a spirit world, one wonders why people continue to believe in it. One reason that I can think of is that people have a deep sense of existential loneliness that makes it comforting to think that they are surrounded by the spirits of dead friends and family and that they will join them in the future. It is such a deep psychological need that it overcomes all reason and logic.
Suggestion
Well, concerning survival of consciousness, how would we ever be able to detect it? Since our own consciousness is indetectable at the time, though it now has a theory, but is still unable to be proven, how could we prove afterlife until then? We wouldn't know about consciousness if we didn't experience it. If we somehow didn't, it would probably be dismissed as false. Also, if people can talk to the dead, it would only be a select few with a unique condition that allowed them to. And there as been some scientists, who claim there is proof some are correct: http://www.newsnet5.com/news/2893543/detail.html.
If the theory that consciousness is like an electric current is true, picture it leaving the body the way energy leaves other objects in science. Unable to be seen, nor really do anything to anyone. Except for special circumstances.
Dead is, unfortunately, dead.
I really enjoyed this article and plan to pass it around to some of my friends who entertain the idea that there may be "something more" after this life other than decomposition. Unfortunately for them, the logic of your arguments precludes that. It seems to me that in positing some continued existence for consciousness one assumes that consciousness is a "thing" separate from the brain, sort of like positing that sight is a "thing" that continues to exist after the eye is damaged or destroyed. We never ask, "Where did the 60 Miles Per Hour go after the car hit the cement pylon?" and it seems just as silly to ask that question about consciousness. Those who believe in the continued existence of consciousness assume (wrongly, IMHO) that it is in some sense seperate from the brain which produces it. Why then, I am fond of asking, does a change in the chemical make-up of the brain (go have a few pints at your local pub to see what I am talking about) so dramtically change consciousness? I think the answer is so obvious that one could almost say that question is rhetorical.
Another great article!
Where did the 60 MPH go? Somewhere...
'We never ask, "Where did the 60 Miles Per Hour go after the car hit the cement pylon?"'
That's not a very good example. We do, in fact, ask where the '60 Miles Per Hour' went, in the sense of asking questions about the transfer of kinetic energy. As most people know, when a car slows down its kintetic energy is transferred into heat, sound, energy in other bodies and so on. Asking 'where the speed went', or, more accurately, where the energy went, is a legitimate question.
If anything, your example highlights something important by mistake that erodes your case. When people wonder 'where did the consciousness go?' they are implicitly appealing to the Principle of Conservation in much the same way that a scientist appeals to it when they wonder about energy beings transferred. There's nothing immediately stupid about that.
Given this, I think that we face a stark choice about consciousness as follows:
1 Consciousness is real and the Principle of Conservation is universal. Therefore, consciousness is permanent and is always conserved in some form, though not necessarily a visible or obvious form. Just because we cannot see consciousness after death doesn't mean it no longer exists; our trust in the Principle of Conservation should override this.
2 Consciousness is real but the Principle of Conservation is not universal. It only applies to certain things. (Which things, and why?) Therefore, consciousness is not necessarily conserved.
3 Consciousness is not real. It never existed in the first place.
On a side note, even if you disagree with people who think that consciousness is separate from the brain, I think they are far less foolish than you seem to. What they are implicitly appealing to is the 'Hard Problem of Consciousness', which is something along the lines of 'How do seemingly unintelligent, physical brain states produce private, conscious states?' I can understand if you think this is a non-question, many people do, but that far from necessitates you thinking that anyone who takes the question seriously is a fool. To briefly deal with your 'alcohol' example, for instance, the brain and consciousness can easily be seen as related, but distinct. I can believe that drinking alcohol will affect my consciousness without thinking that consciousness IS the brain. Simply noticing the effect of alcohol on my body enforces no particular interpretation.
To summarise my doubts, I think that your beliefs about death are far more interpretative than you realize. It is not a simple case of 'I am paying attention to the evidence, and my opponents are not'. Evidence needs interpretation, and people can disagree about this as well. Many of your opponents are interpreting things differently from you, not refusing to consider evidence. Of course, some interpretations are better than others...
Another possible argument contradicting an afterlife
Quote:
"As far as I can tell, the very fact that there has been no convincing proof for thousands of years that life exists after death is all the proof we are ever going to have that it does not exist."
I think there is another proof/hint that life after death does not exist.
Some presumptions:
-------------------------
Neuroscience, amongst others, is trying to find neuronal correlates (NCs) for certain mental features. NCs can be identified with some certainty by...
1. thoroughly designed fMRI experiments
2. studies that look at patients with brain injuries of the brain area (the NCs) in question and find that damage to the NC does cause a change in the specific mental feature.
In the philosophy of mind there is a problem of judging whether an other subject has an inner mental life. I intend to draw an analogy between this problem and the problem whether or not there is an afterlife.
For the the mind the are basically there two methods to find out. First is behaviorism - the way the subject reacts in certain situations. In the way that the argument reasons through objective available experience it resembles the authors argument that there is no afterlife.
The second way is to analyse how close the other subjects central nervous system (CNS) resembles our own CNS. As the CNS is the (today largely accepted) manifestation of our mental abilities the similarities will lead us to the conclusion that the other subject does have mental features. My argument considering the afterlife will be in some way similar to this anatomical argument for mental entities.
The argument
---------------
IF
science could find the neuronal correlates for all our mental features.
AND
science could conclusively explain how these NCs cause all our mental features
THEN
Science will thereby be able to strongly suggest that mind EXCLUSIVELY exists through the ACTIVITY in our physical NEURAL STRUCTURES within our brains.
After death and decay the obvious absence of both, the activity and the needed neural structure (NCs), would therefor make an additional strong point that we cant expect an afterlife.
To assume that our minds might "survive" in any meaningful sense by conservation of energy cant reasonably be expected. Though the energy of our decaying body is preserved in some diffuse way (heat, electric field) it can hardly be assumed that this form of energy is able to sustain our minds as a mind needs a specific structure and activity.
--Garak
Life After Death
Probably "consciousness after death" would be a better way to put it.
The only viable concepts are those that can be examined experimentally and scientifically. An afterlife based on somebody's "revelation", especially somebody dead for millenia, isn't much amenable to this and the best study is simply a study of similar "revelations" and the biographies of persons who supply them and of their historical contexts.
Ghosts and reincarnation, however, can be examined. It's possible to go to some supposedly haunted place and conduct all manner of measurements as well as wait to see the ghosts. It's been done, and not too convincingly, but at least the direct investigation can be carried out.
If a person claims to remember a past life -- more convincing if that person is a child -- the records can be investigated for that life. If someone says they were an insurance salesmen named Joe Blow who lived in Omaha and dies in 1939 of a heart attack, then it's possible to look at Omaha phone books and city directories and newspapers for the alleged Joe Blow as well as go over geneaologies of Blow families. Since most people except for a significant number from recent centralized states for a bit more than a century have vanished from memory and records this will only work for very recent alleged lives.
But at least the investigation can be carried out according to established criteria.
A problem with either of these options is the mass of mystical and theological drivel connected with both beliefs -- you lived once as a person who was murdered because of the "karma" of a prior existence, or you hang around the old house because there was something you should've done but didn't. In view of actual, physical connections discovered between events once thought to be supernaturally caused (the plague as punishment for sin, for example), these explanations don't hack it even if validity of the phenomena were supported.
I doubt it would or will be, because when you're dead you're dead, but measurability gives an idea some possibility.
Where did the 60 MPH go? Somewhere...
I think the 60 MPH example is a great example, actually. The same loss of energy applies to living beings as well as automobiles and notice how your answer waxes scientific, as if you want to claim some legitimacy for it. I wasn't making a case; I am not claiming anything, ergo, I am not obligated to make a case. Those who claim the existence of a phenomenon are obligated to make the case. This is basic logic. All bodily functions cease at death, some quicker than others. Those who claim that consciousness is special need to provide evidence and make a case. The fact that you seem to be unaware of this basic rule of logic, well, it erodes more than just your case.
But really, you just can't come to grips with the fact that there is nothing about you, me or anyone else that transcends existence. You don't argue for the continued existence of a dog's consciousness, or an elephant's, just (implicitly) yours. Why should humans be special, so that their consciousness, unlike any other living thing, has some sort of a claim to existence after death? Because this whole thing relates to YOU and you are just by golly, gee wilikers soooo special that the universe couldn't possible get along without you! Therefore, you must continue to exist after your body ceases to. Some argument. I don't think people fools; they just need to look at their presuppositions a bit more closely.
Again, you present ad hominems and critiques. A critique is not a refutation; there is a difference between the two that escapes most. ID/creationists think that a critique of evolution is a refutation of evolution and it seems that you have that same frame of mind. How do two gases when combined together, produce "wetness"? They do, in the very same way that if you put some very specific types of matter together in a specific way, you will produce consciousness, both human and otherwise. Change that structure and you change the consciousness (see alcohol example). Giving a detailed explanation as to "why" does not legitimize any phenomenon nor does the lack of the "why" answer call into question the facts surrounding the phenomenon. We currently lack the sophistication to answer the "why" question at the present time vis-a-vis consciousness and the mechanism for gravity, but we will never be able to deal with the intellectually immature "that can't be all that there is" or, let me phrase it correctly "that can't be all that I am".
Yes, it sure can and once your life has been lived, it'll be over and that is that. In the words of Dan Dennett, "It's not that bad." My view of death is simple; the cessation of life. We have no problem applying that to a squid, a squirrel or a giraffe. No talk about the continuation of anything as regards those animals. But when we come to humans, its a different, or should I say "ad hoc" issue, for you. You are right, some interpretations are better than others and a good rule of thumb is that ad hoc interpretations suck. You have evidence that consciousness continues after death then present it and make your case based on that evidence. All this other stuff is nonsense, like arguing what color is a unicorn's horn. You can end this discussion rather quickly by simply presenting evidence. But let me guess, you won't and your response will be all sorts of "what ifs" and "there is always that" but no unicorn's horn. :)
Rich
NEMO NASCITUR SAPIENS ARTIFEX
Animal Afterlife
"You don't argue for the continued existence of a dog's consciousness, "
Here is one of the questions. Aside from the fact that if I were going to live on in some otherworldly "heaven" I would want all the dogs I've owned or known to be there, there should be some evolutionary afterlife gradient. That is, animals at least should have some developing property that makes them more likely to survive death: self-awareness, perhaps.
The problem here is how natural selection would operate on it since natural selection requires death before reproduction in many individuals in order to affect future generations.
It might be possible that such a quality could emerge randomly as a product of neurological or other development and that selection for it might actually operate on attendant factors.
That would be untestable as far as I can see, so it might as well not be so.
It would be similar to the lack of ageing in some animals such as many crocodilians. They don't enter old age but of course they eventually die of accident, disease, or trauma due to fighting. Despite that, their behavior doesn't change: they still act like alligators as long as they live, the only effect being that the longer-lived ones are able to have more offspring. But what effect on "earthly existence" would translation to another plane or world have?
There's a barrier of untestability to any afterlife except, as I noted, reincarnation and ghosts. But how would those arise or be affected by natural selection? They'd have to influence biology or they would simply be random happenings. Is this a question worth pondering, or is it even a real question?
Evidence That Would Be Proof Exists Already
You state that near-death experiences and the like are not convincing proof. Then you state that real proof would be something such as having someone who is well-known and obviously dead appear before a crowd of witnesses. But the proof that you demand has already happened; look up Leslie Flint, a medium who has talked with many well-known dead people in the presence of other people.
Also, I'd like to comment that there is real proof in terms of near-death experiences not being dreams or hallucinations. The real proof is when a blind person has an NDE, and during the NDE she sees what's going on in the hospital room. Witnesses such as doctors and nurses confirm what the blind person saw during the NDE.
If you ask me, this is incontrovertible evidence. I think God is trying to show us more of what life really is, but die-hard skeptics simply refuse to listen to Her.
Wonder
People say that there is no proof of an afterlife and maybe that's true at least to them; however, that can't be true for me. There has to be something because the notion of nothingness is horrible. For me, I don't care if I live or die, whether it hurts, or where I end up but if the people I care about just stop existing I don't know how it would be. To think that those that I loved are no more is not right because it can't be. People are individuals with there own thoughts, memories, etc. You can say they are shaped by their surroundings and to an extent that might be true; but, I know that in each situation I'm put into that I make a conscious decision that will differ from someone else's because of who I am not how I am made. I've had a crisis of faith, not knowing whether my god is the real god or my faith is the right one; but I've never believed that there isn't a driving force that created us and souls for us. If, you're one of those people that believe in a strictly scientific approach to things, then think about the first law of thermodynamics; energy can neither be created nor destroyed. What we are isn't just radiant heat energy adding up to 98.6 degrees farenheit. There are thousands, maybe millions, of functions going on in the body yet when we die the energy used for those functions is just gone? How? Does it really all get expended as the heat leaves the body, if so, then how come our functions don't continue up until the time we remain completely devoid of heat or some other point? It's just gone the moment or heart stops beating, so I guess I'm saying maybe it isn't maybe it goes some place else in another form.
Who knows, right..
I read a blog from a Danish brain surgeon (I am danish), who claims that the brain itself cant separate what you imagine and what you actually experience. To be quite honest I firstly heard about it in the movie "What the bleep do we know", which I don't really trust as evidence. But reading from a fellow clever Dane, made me think.... DAMN - How in the world is that possible if our brain is the one controlling element? - to me at least it is evidence, that we should keep a eye out for something more.
PS. I would love to post the link for the blog... But I can't find it now, and in any case it would be in Danish.
PPS. I agree that no-one can talk to the dead and that ghost's and goblins don't exist. But let's agree that the universe (world) is a very big place, very mysterious and claiming that what we can't prove doesn't exist is dumb ! We had gravity before Newton, right?
------------------------------------
I honestly don't know ?
The notion of nothingness
@anonymouos - You say
There has to be something because the notion of nothingness is horrible
Wish it were so easy.
Osvice, Hiroshima, and the Killing Fields of Cambodia can't have happened because if they had, it would be too horrible to bear? But these mass murders happened, regardless what you call the situation, regardless what horrors you feel.
"There has to be a benevolent idea behind it all!" Why? Just to make you feel comfortable? Is the reason of this world to make you feel fine in you rocking chair?
"Oh, they're all dead, but not really". That's simply wishful thinking, not reasoning.
Your definition of death as stop of heartbeat is outdated - it's merely stop of brain functions these days, as reanimations are frequently performed - and so is your idea of the heart being the seat of the soul...
Your reference to the 1st law of thermodynamics is somewhat obscure: if you look at a corpse as a closed system, the energy in the form of heat leaves the system post mortem, as predicted by said law.
Theists like the word "law" (like in 1st law of thermodynamics) because they mistake it for a "rule" of their utmost tyrant, god. Thermodynamics simply describes what happens in a good old-fashioned steam engine, and in similar heat-controlled constellations, up to stellar dimensions...
I don't agree with you, that
I don't agree with you, that the absence of proof of an afterlife, proves that it doesn't exist. I think you can't prove whether it exists or not, because a spiritual world, if it does exist, lies beyond our threedimensional, earthly environment. And science is limited to investigating just that.
I can only give you my personal thought. I'm pretty much an agnost when it comes to these things like life after death and God. I don't believe in a personal God that looks out for us, and answers our prayers, cause for me that contradicts with the situation in which our world is in nowadays. If any kind of "God" exists, then I don't believe he has an influence on our lives as human beings whatsoever. You can pray all you like it won't make a difference. There could be some kind of "higher power", but why would that "power" (call it God if you will), be concerned about us humans? We are just a tiny planet in a universe that contains billions of stars with probably billions of planets. So why would we then be "God's" most important creation, or the centre of the universe? Why would we be more important than other (extraterrestial?) lifeforms?
As far as life after death concerns, it all depends on what consciousness is, and how it is created. Was it somehow present before we were born, and will it continue to exist after our death, or not? Obviously, if consciousness is formed by the brain, the answer is no. But science can't say for sure whether this is the case or not. Untill we know for sure what consciousness is exactly, and how it is formed, noone can really tell for sure.
Okay..
Alright, a few months ago I begin thinking, "What happens to my mind after I die..?" And it HAS been bothering me, so I went to many friends, people around me, and even read things. I finally got interested in what happens. And what I am about to say is most likely going to make a lot of people laugh, and just want to shove it all back in my face. But that doesn't bother me, because for one.. I know it's true.
As I started to ask around, I spoke to one of my friends who is an Athiest, and speaking to him wasn't such a good idea. What he told me was that we are simply like televisions, once we're unplugged there is no picture..no sound..nothing. But the first thing I found wrong with that was that we are not -robots.- There is something more to us than a setup being controled on nothing but mainly wires. Unsettled with this answer, I went to other friends which once told me he believed we would be reborn when we decided too. And I asked him why we didn't have any memory of anything before. His belief was because if we did, than we would simply do the same thing...and a few other things that have slipped my mind, sadly.
Another friend believed almost the same thing honestly.. but nothing left me satisfied, until I finally brought the subject to my very own grandmother. I finally set down with her, and she explained things to me I have never known which settled me.
My grandmother told me a story about when my great grandfather actually died, and came back--(She was ten at the time.)
My grandpa had a drunk friend who wanted him to take him to a bar, but my grandpa said no because he had to get my grandma's siblings home. Since the man was already drunk, this angered him so he pulled out a knife and stabbed it into my grandpa's neck which made my grandpa react by quickly turning causing the knife to cut up from ear to ear. Many people say you see a bright light, a tunnel even, and I've heared others say that this is simply a trick of the mind, and even the mind trying to make itself not think of death because it is afraid. But my grandpa DID go into the tunnel, and as he reached the light. Something made him turn around. He actually PRESSED his head down, keeping it from falling off. Now there was still connection to the body, his throat had not been cut, only the back of his head. He walked like this all the way to the house where grandma found him and rushed to the neighbor. And when they got to the hospital, they stitched him shut. The docters believed he would not make it, but he did only to die of old age when I was merely three years old. Now I know a LOT of people will not believe that story, but it honestly is the truth.
Many other things have happened, such as when I was a child of the age four I walked in with my hand in the air as if I was holding someone's hand. It was even perfectly shaped to be holding one. And when my mother asked me if there was something wrong with my hand, I answered with, "No. Me and Daddy just came in for lunch. "
The thing is, my father died when I was still a baby. Sure, I was a child then. Everyone has imagination, but something about my father was not normal for me because I never truely asked about him until an older age.
Another time was after my great grandpa (the one mentioned earlier) had passed on. My great grandma walked in only to find me sitting on the bed, singing, and when she asked. I simply replied with that I was singing with grandpa. Now as I mentioned earlier, I was NOT a child to do things like this. Sure, I would go about pretending I had imaginary Pokemon and such, but never did I imagine things like this.
I even have a few more stories I will not get into.
As for the belief of God, he has been in my life thousand of times, and it was NOT situations that would have just happened. Some envolving the health of my family, people around us, and even the help of my grandma, and my aunt. God.. he isn't suppose to run OUR lives for us. What we do is our choice, and we suffer for it. He wont be there for every step of the way, and he allows things to happen for a reason though people may not know that reason. We can pray, but that doesn't mean he will act upon it though their is strength in prayer... and in my life.. it has been proven. The reason I am not getting into detail about these situations is because I do not want this post to be longer than it has been, but if I was to be asked, I would tell one just like that.
God.. I don't believe he just favors us. No one really argues about animals and such, but I am sure they even get a place somehow.. somewhere; Not doggie heaven, or any of that. I do believe he loves all, but at the same time; I don't believe he is going to be the type to hand out hugs, and smiles. I don't think anyone truely knows why we are who we are either. There is so many questions out there, and guys. They are NOT all going to be answered!!
Science.. it can only go so far. It cannot give us all the answers I believe, and while things make sense at times in the mind, there is going to be something missing. Many of these discussions about how the brain works.. it truely does make sense, but knowing details.. things other than just that proves to me that there is something else out there. Not unicorns, austrailian dragons..any of that crap.
So that is what I believe.
Laugh,
Shake your head in disapproval,
Believe it,
Do whatever.
Because this is what I believe, and things that have happened in my life and even before it.