246 thoughts on “Sean Carroll and Steven Novella debate life after death with Eben Alexander and Raymond Moody”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
When I heard Alexander make the Carl Sagan claim, even though I’d never read that book, I thought oh come on, there’s no f*ing way Carl Sagan ever said anything of the sort.
After reading keiths’ linked information, though, it seems to me that Alexander was more interested in promoting and protecting his new identity than in making a scientific debate, which is why he led off with the largely irrelevant anecdote of personal experience in what was supposedly a scientific debate. It also explains why he refused to respond to the the other side’s rebuttal about false memories.
William,
You’ve told us that the Pam Reynolds story doesn’t meet your “high intellectual standards”, yet you also said that Alexander and Moody should have used it in the debate. When challenged, you said:
What were you saying about truth, logic, and intellectual standards?
It was amusing that when Alexander said this…
…people in the audience started cheering. If he can cite the exact page number, he must know what he’s talking about, right? I wonder if any of them bothered to check, in which case they now realize that Alexander was lying through his teeth.
Sriskandarajah,
Your argument seems to boil down to this:
1. Sriskandarajah had a body as a child.
2. Sriskandarajah has a different body as an adult.
3. Same Sriskandarajah, different body.
4. If the same Sriskandarajah can occupy different bodies in this life, then the same Sriskandarajah can occupy different bodies across two different lives.
Is that a fair summary of your argument?
That’s a mischaracterization of what I actually said. I explained one aspect of my intellectual standards; how I acquire knowledge, and what I am willing to label as knowledge. I said that by that criteria, I don’t personally consider the Pam Reynolds story as “knowledge” under my personal, idiosyncratic definition of the term, but that doesn’t mean I consider it untrue or even unlikely to be true.
I never said “the Pam Reynolds case doesn’t meet my high intellectual standards”, I said that under my high intellectual standard of what I am willing to classify as knowledge, the Pam Reynolds case doesn’t qualify as knowledge – because I did not personally experience it.
That doesn’t mean that just because a class of information doesn’t meet my personal high standard of what I personally accept as knowledge, that I cannot or should not employ it in a debate with people that argue on the basis of that class of information. IOW, if I’m arguing with people on the basis of scientific research and published articles, then that’s what I use (and is proper to use) in the argument, my personal view of such information notwithstanding.
Which is why I said Moody and Alexander should have used the Pam Reynolds case, mediumship research, psi research, afterlife research, reincarnation research, etc.; at least they would have been making an argument from the same general class of available information that the debate was predicated on.
The good faith principle would demand, rather, that he just made an big fat fool of himself.
William, in a Sandbox comment:
So you’d like us to believe that had you been in Alexander’s or Moody’s shoes during the debate, you would have said something like:
Really?
If you’re going to fail for amusement, trumpeting your own high standards then going against them in about half an hour will always bring the lulz.
keiths said:
If it was me, I wouldn’t have agreed to the terms of the debate in the first place because it’s outside of my wheelhouse.
As long as the information met the generally accepted standard for the debate, and as long as I’m not, to the best of my knowledge, misrepresenting it, then the fact that it doesn’t meet my personal, idiosyncratic criteria for “knowledge” is irrelevant.
If I have a good idea that it probably isn’t true, then I won’t use it. IOW, keiths, it’s not just about developing good tactics and debate strategies, it’s also about being honest and not attempting to mislead anyone – as I’ve already pointed out. What I personally believe to be true, or hold as knowledge, is irrelevant; the only thing that matters if if I am deliberately misleading others. Making a case for a proposition is not the same as saying you believe the proposition is true; using evidence to support that proposition doesn’t mean you personally know that evidence is true. You do the best you can, do your due diligence, be honest and avoid misleading people.
For whatever reason, you apparently assumed that when I said something about developing the best debate tactics from the available information that it necessarily meant being dishonest or misleading others That inference of yours was erroneous.
If someone asked me if I knew that the Pam Reynolds story was true in the debate, I’d say no, I don’t know. I’d admit I have no way of knowing; but if the doctors on the other side are going to argue through articles published by scientists recognized as experts in their fields, then scientific articles, research or reports that contain evidence/information contrary to their position is equally admissible and should be considered in the debate. That’s why I suggested that scientists more familiar with that kind of evidence/information should have been the ones on the pro-afterlife side.
“Immortal”, as I understand it, applies only to living things that can die; sufferings are not living things unto themselves, so I would have to say no by definition.
Then for naturalists, all suffering is by definition temporary.
William,
It may have had something to do with this paragraph of yours:
Not exactly dripping with honesty, is it?
Keiths,
Keths:
Your argument seems to boil down to this:
1. Sriskandarajah had a body as a child.
2. Sriskandarajah has a different body as an adult.
3. Same Sriskandarajah, different body.
4. If the same Sriskandarajah can occupy different bodies in this life, then the same Sriskandarajah can occupy different bodies across two different lives.
Is that a fair summary of your argument?
Sriskandarajah:
There are two kinds of continuity. One is continuity of existence through the changing physical structure. Other is continuity through the changing sensations. You have mentioned about the first one. You didn’t talk about the continuity through sensations. Please mention about that next time.
You have nicely summarized what I want to say. But the summary does not include my entire explanations. Your summary cooled me. There, Sriskandarajah is really a name. But the name indicates a reality which continues to exist. It is a fact. Really it happens. But how it continues is the problem. If we can find that then we will be able to understand without any arguments and evidences how that realty continues to another body. Evidences are limited. Evidences are not always reliable.
If you see your movement from one sensation to another sensation and the movement from one body to another body in the same existence (as a child and as an adult) you will understand two facts.
(1)You are not the body and sensations.
(2)There is a continuity of existence.
The first one leads you to finding out what you are.
The second one leads you to finding out how the continuity of existence happens.
The above numbered two things are very important which you have to see yourself very deeply. They are not for arguments. They need for your further research.
Unless you turn your outward movement of mind inwardly you cannot find the answer to the above two phenomena. In the outward movement you can argue endlessly without seeing any truth. Unless you find out what you are there is no possibility to understand the truths behind life and death.
A.Sriskandarajah
Robin,
It is a very simple thing. Why do you make it a big issue? What I want to say is living thing is different from sensations and sensations are not stable and permanent since they are the outcome of series of brain process.
From an earlier comment of mine:
I got the book from the library today to see what Moody had actually written. Here’s his description of what happened after he overdosed on Darvon:
So in the book he says he went to heaven in the company of “spirit guides”, surrounded by unworldly light, but in the debate he said that he had never experienced an NDE. WTF?
keiths:
Sriskandarajah:
There isn’t always “continuity through sensations”. Sensations can vanish, as happens when we are under general anesthesia.
What, specifically, is the “reality which continues to exist”? How do you know that it continues to exist after you die?
Every day, beings die and other beings are born. How do you know that any of the dead beings return as newly born beings? What is your evidence?
Or if it continues. That’s why I’ve asked you to state precisely what it is that you think “continues to another body”, so that we can judge your hypothesis.
Exactly. We’d be foolish to accept extraordinary claims regarding reincarnation on the basis of flimsy and unreliable evidence.
I think I am the body. The body changes over time, and so do I. Your mistake is in thinking that if I am my body, and my body changes, then I am no longer me. That’s not true. The Mississippi River remains the Mississippi even if every water molecule in it flows out into the Gulf or evaporates and is replaced by others. It’s the same with me.
Yes, during this life. You need to demonstrate that existence continues after this life.
If you have no knowledge or memory of other lives, what is the point?
Keiths:
Keiths:
There isn’t always “continuity through sensations”. Sensations can vanish, as happens when we are under general anesthesia.
My explanation:
It is a very good point. I have already taken this matter for my search. In my waking state I continue through sensations. But there is break of continuity during deep sleep and under anesthesia. But that break doesn’t put a permanent end to my presence. We are sure that there is a return from anesthesia and from deep sleep if nothing happens adversely.
In the break I completely disappear. It is similar to death. Death also is such a break of continuity. How I return from anesthesia and deep sleep? That is the question. Under the same process I may return even from death which is also a break of continuity.
Keiths:
What, specifically, is the “reality which continues to exist”? How do you know that it continues to exist after you die?
My answer:
If you accept the continuity of a reality, then your above questions are also my questions to which I have been searching answers. The reality is you. But I don’t know what you are.
Keiths:
Every day, beings die and other beings are born. How do you know that any of the dead beings return as newly born beings? What is your evidence?
My answer:
Good! That is my search. Without knowing what happens in this life we can’t understand what happens next.
Keiths:
Or if it continues. That’s why I’ve asked you to state precisely what it is that you think “continues to another body”, so that we can judge your hypothesis.
My answer:
There is a continuity of existence. I understand the things which are not continuing with me.
So what is it that continues is my search. If I say otherwise, I am the reality which continues. So I want to find out what I am. Same thing I ask in different ways. I want to find it better in a scientific way.
Keiths:
Exactly. We’d be foolish to accept extraordinary claims regarding reincarnation on the basis of flimsy and unreliable evidence.
My comments:
Good. But we can’t ignore all evidences. They are subject to further verifications to confirm the genuineness. But I am not much interested in such matters.
Keiths:
You are not the body and sensations.(said by me)
I think I am the body. The body changes over time, and so do I. Your mistake is in thinking that if I am my body, and my body changes, then I am no longer me. That’s not true.
My explanation:
No! No! I didn’t say that your body undergoes changes, then you are no longer you. Please understand that the body undergoes changes but you continue to exist. You are always there. You continue to exist. That is why I asked you earlier what you are. You are the reality. Here I didn’t tell that. I left it to your thinking. Are you scared that you are no longer you? Never! My interest is about “you” and “I “. Then how can I say that? I said that you are not the body and sensations. But I didn’t say you are nothing. I said that because to make you understand that you are the reality, something more than this body and sensations.
You have the feeling of your body which makes you to think that you are the body. Even the body changes you continue to have the body feeling but not always the same. So you continue to think you are the body. Body feeling is a sensation. So that is not permanent. You identify yourself with an impermanent thing. That is natural. But it is a wrong identification.
Keiths:
The Mississippi River remains the Mississippi even if every water molecule in it flows out into the Gulf or evaporates and is replaced by others. It’s the same with me.
My explanation:
Very fine explanation which I have already thought about it. This is what I want to tell you.
There is nothing permanent either in the river or in you. But “you” are always there.
Keiths:
There is a continuity of existence. ( said by me)
Yes, during this life. You need to demonstrate that existence continues after this life.
My explanation:
Good. I am really happy to hear what you said. What you said is enough. I didn’t write all these things by reading some books or from any religious background. It has been my search for many years to end the sorrow of death. There is a continuity of existence. It is a truth. But it is only a beginning. Not the end. Which continues and how it happens is my search to find out whether that existence continues from one body to another?
A.Sriskandarajah
I do not see that your fantasy ends death, and I see no reason to end sorrow.
We grieve when someone close to us dies. It means they were important to us, and we have lost something.
There is a continuity to life. We are all cousins and are all cousins with all of life. I find the poetic metaphor of a flame passing from candle to candle to be apt.
keiths:
Sriskandarajah:
Under anesthesia, parts of your brain stop working, and awareness vanishes. When the anesthesia wears off, those parts of your brain start working again, and awareness returns. This is just one of many, many facts that tell us that consciousness cannot exist without the brain.
When you die your brain stops working, and awareness vanishes, but this time it’s permanent. The brain never starts working again, so awareness never returns.
The only way to avoid this conclusion is to argue that awareness is independent of the brain. Unfortunately, all of the evidence indicates otherwise, as Carroll and Novella stressed during the debate.
keiths:
Sriskandarajah:
If you can’t identify the “reality which continues to exist”, then how do you know that it continues to exist after you die?
keiths:
Sriskandarajah:
You didn’t mention any evidence.
keiths:
Sriskandarajah:
Yes, but I think you are missing the implications. The river is a physical thing — a bunch of water molecules flowing toward the sea. Yet even when all the molecules are replaced, it is still the same river. This doesn’t mean that there is some kind of “river soul” that continually inhabits the Mississippi — it just means that “the Mississippi River” does not merely name a static entity, it names a “flow”. If the flow ends — say, if the river dries up permanently — then the Mississippi River no longer exists.
See this beautiful video of a lenticular cloud over New Zealand. The cloud remains, even though air and water are constantly flowing through it. When the weather changes, the cloud vanishes. The continuity is broken.
Likewise, “keiths” is the name of a living process, an evolving being, not a static entity. Even when all the molecules of keiths have been replaced, he is still keiths. However, if the process ends — say, by a grand piano falling on keiths from a great height — then keiths no longer exists. The continuity is broken.
Here are a couple of observations that have softened the blow for me, and might help you as well:
First, the prospect of living forever is actually pretty scary. Who knows what you might have to endure? There’s certainly no guarantee that an eternal existence would be a pleasant one. I take some comfort in knowing that my existence won’t go on forever. (At the same time, I’m in no hurry to die. There’s a happy medium somewhere.)
Second, if our awareness begins at birth and ends at death, then our situation after death is no different from our situation before being born. Few of us regret the fact that we didn’t exist for eons before our births, so why regret or fear the eons of nonexistence following our deaths?
The process of death itself can be scary, and giving up cherished things can be painful, but actually being dead seems no more frightening than not being born yet.
Keiths:
When my brain is anesthetized, parts of my brain stop working so the conscious of I disappear. But the brain still exists. So, the brain without function has no ability to keep me conscious. When certain parts of the brain start working again the conscious of I return. With the start of function of the brain the same I return again. Not another real person. So it seems that the brain function creates me. But that is not true. Brain function is a series of reactions. How can the series of reactions always create the same me in the sense the same real person? So, a non functioning brain or a functioning brain does not make my existence, does not create me. During waking state I exist with conscious. When my brain is anesthetized still I exist but in an unconscious state. That is why I am able to return again.
Brain involves in the arising of sense of experiences. That is true. When the brain is anesthetized it loses its involvement in the arising of all sense of experiences. During waking state we have a continuous internal body feeling. It is a sense of experience which makes us aware of our existence. It is a sense of experience which makes us conscious. When the brain is anesthetized it loses its ability to involve in the arising of sensations including the internal body feeling. So the conscious of I temporarily disappear. But “I” existed without experiencing anything when my brain is under anesthesia. In this state “I” existed without any connection to brain. That doesn’t mean “I” can function without a brain and feel experiences without a brain.
When a person’s leg is anesthetized locally he loses the feeling of his leg. If his leg is removed then also he loses the feeling of his leg. Suppose if medical science is advanced to transplant legs and if his leg is transplanted he will regain the feeling of leg. So the reality does not depend on the same body to have the body feeling again.
If you don’t understand the above explanation there is no point of touching your other questions.
You say that many facts that tell us that consciousness cannot exist without the brain.At the same time brain also exists in our consciousness.
Here I don’t want to use the term consciousness because first we need to understand what it refers to. As I explained above, “I” exist in a state of experiencing nothing without any link to the brain. The link is disconnected by anesthesia.
What do you mean by this time it’s permanent? Is this body my permanent asset? Do I possess this body permanently? When a new brain starts working again awareness returns again. You may tell that it is not the same person and it is another person. Which is the same person who possess the awareness?\In this existence there is no static physical base responsible for keeping the same I. So there is no permanent physical binding for me to disappear in this body and appear in another body.
There is an argument whether consciousness is independent of brain or dependent of brain. So they create a division between brain and consciousness. They make such division and argue endlessly whether consciousness is in the brain or brain is in the consciousness. This division is illusion. The consciousness is in the brain. The other way around the brain is in our consciousness. You can observe the both very clearly and at same time directly. No need any big evidence. Really there is no such division. Matter and consciousness are one. Illusion makes it two and creates the problem that whether awareness is independent of brain or not. It is a wrong perception.
First we need to understand the reality which continues to exist now. Only after that we may come to know really what happens when we die. There is no meaning to say that when your body dies you also come to an end. If you identify you with your body then that “you” come to end when the body dies. If you identify yourself with your emotions and feelings then that “you” come to an end when your emotions and feelings end with the death of the body. If you understand very clearly that you are not the body and sense of experiences then the identification of “you” has a different meaning. But you cannot separate the “you” from this physical body. You cannot separate the “you” from your sense of experiences. Because at a point there is only one form of existence in a waking state. Our thoughts create the divisions of “you”, your body, your brain, your sense of experiences, your awareness and your consciousness.
What do you mean by dead beings and what do you mean by new born beings? When you say that every day beings die and other beings are born, it means the physical bodies. In a physical body the reality gets the sense of experiences. In the absence of body it remains without experiencing anything. When the body is formed, the reality again starts to feel the sense of experiences in accordance the development of the brain. The body is for the reality. I know that you have the doubt whether the same reality appear in another body.
We don’t know what really happens now. Understanding what happens now is the only way to see what happens next. Understanding the real identity of yourself is the only way to clear that doubt. Evidence is no more effective.
River is an example to show that there is nothing permanent in these physical and mental structures. We cannot compare our entire existence with a river. You cannot compare you with a river. There is no sense of awareness or sense of being or sense of experiences in a river. It doesn’t know it exists. But we are aware that we exist. Please leave that example.
A.Sriskandarajah
Sriskandarajah,
The brain normally changes gradually, which means that you also change gradually. However, abrupt changes to the brain can change you abruptly, as in the famous case of Phineas Gage.
Another fascinating case is the man whose brain tumor turned him into a pedophile. When the tumor was removed, his pedophilia disappeared, but the doctors had missed some of the tumor cells. The tumor regrew and the pedophilia returned. When the tumor was removed a second time, the pedophilia disappeared again.
You’re able to ‘return’ because the brain is still intact. It resumes functioning when the anesthesia wears off. But if the brain dies during the operation, you don’t ‘return’. Consciousness is a function of the brain. No brain, no consciousness.
Yes, because your brain still existed and was still viable. If your brain had been vaporized while you were under anesthesia, then you wouldn’t have existed any more, and you wouldn’t have returned to consciousness.
No, your brain still existed, but because your brain wasn’t fully functioning, you weren’t conscious.
Transplant a leg, and the recipient remains the same person. Transplant a brain, and you transplant the person.
That’s why I keep asking you to tell me exactly what this “I” is that continues from body to body.
Suppose that person A dies and person B is born. If person B’s experiences, personality, memories, desires, talents, etc., are all different from person B’s, then what is it that continues from A to B? I think you’ve been saying that the awareness continues from A to B, but how do you know that?
How can you tell the difference between:
1. A dies and his awareness continues in B’s body.
2. A dies, and his awareness vanishes forever; when B is born, a new awareness is created.
You’ve given absolutely no evidence for #1. Statement #2 is not only much simpler, it also conforms to the evidence, while #1 does not.
Sure we can.
Rivers aren’t aware, but a river remains the same river even when all of its molecules have been replaced. It is the flow that makes the river a river. If the river dries up permanently — if the flow ceases — then the river is gone.
In the same way, we continue to exist as long as our brains function. It is the brain function that makes us who we are. When the brain stops functioning permanently — when we die — then we are gone.
Keiths:
You don’t answer my questions. You don’t like me to ask any questions. Since you give definite conclusions I need answers to the following questions to understand that you have come to such conclusions with deep understanding of yourself. I want to understand myself from your point of you.
(1)Are the person existed in your brain yesterday and the person existing in your brain now same or different ones? If same, please explain why they are same. If different please explain why they are different.
(2)An existence become nonexistence is death. What is the existence that becomes non existence?
(3) Losing of anything makes us feel sad. Do you thing that anything is lost by death?
If so, what is it?
Death of brains is not a loss. Because a lot of new brains are being born daily.
So, why do the brains of the scientists do all the researches to stop the death of the existing brains?
(4) Why do many brains fear to die itself and grieve when unknown people in the same country or in other countries die by a plane crash or earth quake or ship wreak or war etc ? They are not important to them and they don’t lose anything by their deaths.
(5) According to you the only existence is brain and I continue to exist as long as my brain functions and I am gone when the brain stops functioning permanently.
If brain is the only existence you should tell that when this brain stops functioning this brain is gone. Why do you add another statement unnecessarily “you are also gone”?
Why there is a division brain and “you”? If “you” is not a real existence why do you use the term “you”?
(6) You wrote that in the same way, we continue to exist as long as our brains function. It is the brain function that makes us who we are. When the brain stops functioning permanently — when we die — then we are gone.
I existed yesterday. I exist now. I will exist tomorrow if nothing wrong happened to my body. I want to exist. That is my problem. According to your point of view there is no reality except my brain and its function. So the brain function keeps my existence.
Intestine digests the food. Scientists studied the function of the intestine and found how to get digested food. If we take the digested food we don’t need an intestine. We can exist. So the purpose of the function is more important than the organ. Likewise brain is not more important. Brain function is more important. Here I only mean the function which keeps my existence. If scientists study the brain and find the function which makes me then there is a possibility for me to come back again by effecting the same function which is going on now without the need of any other reality. What do you say about this possibility?
(7) You say that when the brain dies you are gone forever. Why do you say forever? Is there no chance or possibility to see this world again by me by a scientific process?
You wrote that that’s why I keep asking you to tell me exactly what this “I” is that continues from body to body.
I have asked the question what you are or what I am several times in my comments. Now you ask me the same question.
Sriskandarajah,
I have no problem with relevant questions. It’s the irrelevant ones that I object to, like
Sriskandarajah:
The keiths of today is a slightly changed version of the keiths of yesterday. Since there is a clear continuity from yesterday’s keiths to today’s keiths, we use the same name for both, just as we use the same name — the Mississippi River — for both yesterday’s river and today’s.
‘keiths’ is a functioning body and brain. When keiths dies — when his brain and body no longer function — then he has ceased to exist.
Not true. Losing an illness, or a burden, or an undesired possession can actually make us feel happy or relieved. Some losses make us sad, but not all.
Life, and everything that goes along with it.
Tell that to the people who have lost loved ones due to “death of brains”.
Brains are not interchangeable. When a brain dies, we lose that person forever, and the person loses his or her life. Because we value people, and because people value their own lives, we work to prevent the death of brains.
We are an empathetic species. We care (sometimes) about the sufferings of others, even when we are not directly affected.
Because people naively tend to think of themselves as being separate from their brains. I’m stressing that they aren’t separate.
Well, perhaps some day we’ll be able to clone people by duplicating their molecular structure. The problem is, that technology doesn’t exist today. By the time it is developed (if it ever is) it won’t be of any use to you and me, because we will have long been dead. If no one knows what our molecular structure was, they won’t be able to recreate us.
My advice is to make the most of this life, because it’s almost certain that we won’t get another one.
I’ve told you what I think: we are our functioning bodies and brains. The evidence supports that view. You think we are something else, something that continues from body to body. What is that “something”, how do you know it exists, and how do you know that it continues from body to body? You haven’t presented any evidence for it.
Keiths:
Keiths:
I have no problem with relevant questions. It’s the irrelevant ones that I object to, like
What is matter and how matter came in to existence?
My response:
If I asked you about God that question is irrelevant. If I asked you about the moon that question is irrelevant. To you, brain is the only existence. So I want to know what it is. It contains material molecules. It is a material substance. So I want to know what matter is. Is it irrelevant? It means that you don’t know about the subject you talk about. You talk about the number of persons in a split brain. So I asked you what it means by the term person. You didn’t answer. You don’t know the meaning of person but you talk about person.
Keiths;
The keiths of today is a slightly changed version of the keiths of yesterday. Since there is a clear continuity from yesterday’s keiths to today’s keiths, we use the same name for both, just as we use the same name — the Mississippi River — for both yesterday’s river and today’s.
My response:
This not explaining. What has changed? Your physical body, your emotions and other feelings, your wills and knowledge. What else? Can’t you change your name? Are you always Keiths? There are people with more than one name. If you change your name then where is Keith? Has he gone forever? Name is not a reality. Name has no meaning at all.
Keiths:
‘keiths’ is a functioning body and brain. When keiths dies — when his brain and body no longer function — then he has ceased to exist.
My response:
You say that he has ceased to exist. What is that he?
Keiths:
Losing of anything makes us feel sad.(I said)
Not true. Losing an illness, or a burden, or an undesired possession can actually make us feel happy or relieved. Some losses make us sad, but not all.
My response:
Sorry, Here I made a mistake. Please replace with” losing of things which we possess with pleasure and which we want to possess.
Keiths:
Do you thing that anything is lost by death?
If so, what is it?(my question)
Life, and everything that goes along with it.
My response:
What is life? Whose life? Is it your life or brain’s life? Just answering “life” has no deep meaning at all.
Keiths:
Death of brains is not a loss. (I said)
Tell that to the people who have lost loved ones due to “death of brains”.
My response:
I tell this only to you to whom brain is the real existence.
I know the problem of sorrow of death. That is why I want to understand the real identity of people.
To you real identity is brain. Really death of brain is not a loss. You think so. So it is a loss to you.
People who don’t think like you feel that they have lost some other existence other than the brain. That is why they feel sad. They are unable to identify it. That is why they are confused.
Keiths:
Brains are not interchangeable. When a brain dies, we lose that person forever, and the person loses his or her life. Because we value people, and because people value their own lives, we work to prevent the death of brains.
My response:
According to you, my real identity is only brain. So when the brain is lost why do you say that we lose that person for ever? What is that person you refer to in addition to the dead brain? You also say that the person loses his or her life. Really the brain gives the worldly life. So that person loses his life. Does that person exist without a life? If the brain is the person as you think, then there is no meaning in your answer. All your answers are superficial. You are unable to go deep. You are stagnated with one idea. Do you say brain produce the person by its function like a factory produces soaps?
To you there is only brain and its function. Then why do you need to value the people which are non existence to you?
Ok ! Somehow you value the people. So you work to prevent the death of brains. Good. But you can’t always do that. So what is your answer to those who grieve by the lost of their loved ones or even others not important to them?
Keiths:
We are an empathetic species. We care (sometimes) about the sufferings of others, even when we are not directly affected.
My response:
So, death is a problem. How to solve it scientifically?
Keiths:
Because people naively tend to think of themselves as being separate from their brains. I’m stressing that they aren’t separate.
My response:
Then why are you talking about persons. It is nothing to you. You talk about only brain, cells, neurons etc. Then why do you say that you are also gone forever. What is that extra “you”? Now they aren’t separate. Nobody can separate the “you” from the body or from the sensations. That is true. But when death takes place everything is separated.
According to you “you” are not separate from the brain. Really the world is in the brain. So the brain is not separate from the world. When the brain dies the world also dies. We think brain is in the world. That is illusion.
Keiths:
Well, perhaps some day we’ll be able to clone people by duplicating their molecular structure. The problem is, that technology doesn’t exist today. By the time it is developed (if it ever is) it won’t be of any use to you and me, because we will have long been dead. If no one knows what our molecular structure was, they won’t be able to recreate us.
Keiths:
According to the above if anyone know your molecular structure they can make you by cloning. So you can come again and see the world again. Very good! They can make not only your one body. They can make many such bodies. If they make thousand bodies you can see the world through those thousand bodies. What a fantastic thing?
You identify yourself with your physical body. If you are not the physical body then no one will bring either you or me back by cloning. This is a misconception due to wrong identification of the real being.
Keiths:
My advice is to make the most of this life, because it’s almost certain that we won’t get another one.
My response:
Whether we get another one or we won’t get another one is not the problem. We need to know how we have got this life. To make most of this life is to know what I am and to know what matter is.
Keiths:
I’ve told you what I think: we are our functioning bodies and brains. The evidence supports that view. You think we are something else, something that continues from body to body. What is that “something”, how do you know it exists, and how do you know that it continues from body to body? You haven’t presented any evidence for it.
My response:
Don’t you know that you exist? Don’t you know that you continue to exist? Do you want evidence to know that you exist?
You say that we are our functioning bodies and brains and the evidence supports that view.
What is your evidence that supports that view?
I understand that I am not this body and brain and sense of experiences. I see that very clearly. I cannot show this fact to you in a test tube. You have to see that directly. If you can see this fact directly what evidence you need further. Evidence is useless to know yourself.
We know that energy exist. But we do not know really what it is. Likewise I know that a reality exist other than this brain but I could not understand what it is. But it is obvious that it exists.
We exist as sensation and continue to exist from one sensation to another. It is obvious. First we should understand this phenomenon. That is the first step. Without understanding this phenomenon we can’t go to the next.
Sriskandarajah,
Please start using <blockquote> tags. I’ve already explained how to do it, and so has OMagain.
It’s not difficult, and it will make your comments much easier for the rest of us to read. Give it a try. How about reposting your long comment above, but this time using blockquote tags?
[Does this help? just whizzed thro adding blockquotes where it made sense. Accuracy cannot be guaranteed and you should refer to Sris original comment in case of doubt]
]Keiths:
If I asked you about God that question is irrelevant. If I asked you about the moon that question is irrelevant. To you, brain is the only existence. So I want to know what it is. It contains material molecules. It is a material substance. So I want to know what matter is. Is it irrelevant? It means that you don’t know about the subject you talk about. You talk about the number of persons in a split brain. So I asked you what it means by the term person. You didn’t answer. You don’t know the meaning of person but you talk about person.
Keiths:
This not explaining. What has changed? Your physical body, your emotions and other feelings, your wills and knowledge. What else? Can’t you change your name? Are you always Keiths? There are people with more than one name. If you change your name then where is Keith? Has he gone forever? Name is not a reality. Name has no meaning at all.
Keiths:
You say that he has ceased to exist. What is that he?
Keiths:
Sorry, Here I made a mistake. Please replace with” losing of things which we possess with pleasure and which we want to possess.
Keiths:
What is life? Whose life? Is it your life or brain’s life? Just answering “life” has no deep meaning at all.
Keiths:
I tell this only to you to whom brain is the real existence. I know the problem of sorrow of death. That is why I want to understand the real identity of people. To you real identity is brain. Really death of brain is not a loss. You think so. So it is a loss to you. People who don’t think like you feel that they have lost some other existence other than the brain. That is why they feel sad. They are unable to identify it. That is why they are confused.
Keiths:
According to you, my real identity is only brain. So when the brain is lost why do you say that we lose that person for ever? What is that person you refer to in addition to the dead brain? You also say that the person loses his or her life. Really the brain gives the worldly life. So that person loses his life. Does that person exist without a life? If the brain is the person as you think, then there is no meaning in your answer. All your answers are superficial. You are unable to go deep. You are stagnated with one idea. Do you say brain produce the person by its function like a factory produces soaps? To you there is only brain and its function. Then why do you need to value the people which are non existence to you?
Ok ! Somehow you value the people. So you work to prevent the death of brains. Good. But you can’t always do that. So what is your answer to those who grieve by the lost of their loved ones or even others not important to them?
Keiths:
So, death is a problem. How to solve it scientifically?
Keiths:
Then why are you talking about persons. It is nothing to you. You talk about only brain, cells, neurons etc. Then why do you say that you are also gone forever. What is that extra “you”? Now they aren’t separate. Nobody can separate the “you” from the body or from the sensations. That is true. But when death takes place everything is separated.
According to you “you” are not separate from the brain. Really the world is in the brain. So the brain is not separate from the world. When the brain dies the world also dies. We think brain is in the world. That is illusion.
Keiths:
Keiths:
You identify yourself with your physical body. If you are not the physical body then no one will bring either you or me back by cloning. This is a misconception due to wrong identification of the real being.
Keiths:
Whether we get another one or we won’t get another one is not the problem. We need to know how we have got this life. To make most of this life is to know what I am and to know what matter is.
Keiths:
Don’t you know that you exist? Don’t you know that you continue to exist? Do you want evidence to know that you exist? You say that we are our functioning bodies and brains and the evidence supports that view. What is your evidence that supports that view?
I understand that I am not this body and brain and sense of experiences. I see that very clearly. I cannot show this fact to you in a test tube. You have to see that directly. If you can see this fact directly what evidence you need further. Evidence is useless to know yourself.
We know that energy exist. But we do not know really what it is. Likewise I know that a reality exist other than this brain but I could not understand what it is. But it is obvious that it exists.
We exist as sensation and continue to exist from one sensation to another. It is obvious. First we should understand this phenomenon. That is the first step. Without understanding this phenomenon we can’t go to the next.
@ Keiths and Sriskandarajah
You appear not to have much common vocabulary with which to communicate.
Sris, I think, is using “I know” where I would say “I believe”. Keith is asking “how do you know?” and “what’s your evidence?” Once you ask “how do you believe” then it is simply human nature. We (I believe 🙂 ) have an innate tendency to believe.
Are Sris’ views shocking, unpalatable, dangerous? I can’t see how? Harmless is how they appear to me. They seem pretty much in line with Eastern Buddhism, as far as I know much about Buddhism.
I would agree that without sensory input, our lives would be impossible. Not sure if that’s what you mean though.
Alan Fox,
It is “you” that continues. Do you accept that you continue to exist? Here you should very clearly understand what is this “you” that continues.
Can you find anything permanent and same continues in your existence?
Alan,
To the contrary, we do have a common vocabulary and we’ve been successfully communicating throughout the thread. We just don’t agree on the existence of a “you” that continues from body to body.
No, and I’m not aware of anyone in this thread who has said so. Certainly not me.
I just think they’re wrong. Sriskandarajah thinks they’re right, and he and I have been discussing our disagreement.
Sriskandarajah,
We talked about this already. Awareness is not continuous. Sensations can be interrupted, for example when we lose consciousness under the influence of general anesthesia.
Awareness depends on a functioning brain. When the relevant brain functions cease, whether temporarily or permanently, then awareness ceases.
I’ll repeat my question:
@ Alan and Keiths:
Please just sit in a quiet place. Forget about all the arguments, agreements, disagreements, beliefs, religion, science, atheism, God, soul, brain, after life, evidences and everything. The mind is always talking itself endlessly. Make it quiet for some time. In that stillness of mind you observe what is going on externally and internally.
Now you feel that you exist. Your existence is a mystery. Something very great. You see this colorful world and hear the noises around. If you close your eyes the colorful world disappears. Now you experience your internal body feeling. You sense your self. Sense of self is also an experience. Whatever you feel or see or hear is an experience. Everything is a sense of experience. We think that this body and the world are real and permanent and separate from us. That is an illusion. They are not separate. They exist in me. This body and the world are all sense of experiences. We can’t understand anything beyond our sensations. In a day we spend 24 hours by eating, drinking, talking, debating, working for livelihood, dancing, singing, loving, travelling, sleeping and doing many other things. We may have to do that. That is life. But at the same time if we are little curious and thoughtful we should spend at least 5 minutes to see that we exist and continue to exist and feel many sense of experiences. So we should ask ourselves what I am and how all these sense of experiences arise, why they arise, to whom they arise.
Why we treat this world and our body as real and permanent? Why we treat the “I”
or “you” as impermanent? Our bodies and this world are continuous sense of experiences. So we think they are permanent. When we eat some food we get the sensation of taste. Till we have the food in the mouth we get the taste sensation. But that taste sensation is not permanent. Similarly till we have this body we get the feeling of bodily sensations. When food is taken out from the mouth the taste sensation disappears. When the tongue is taken out we lose our sense of taste. When this body dies or when our brain dies we lose entire feelings. Since all sense of experiences are changing and I who is witnessing all the changing impermanent experiences continually it is obvious that I am the permanent existence and not the brain or body or the world seen by us. This world, our body and our brain are really sense of experiences. So we cannot say that when the body or brain dies you also dies forever. But I exist without a form and continue to another body for the purpose of fulfilling the desires. Nature does that.
The atheists argue that until we have the body we are able to continue and when we lose our body our continuity also ends forever. Superficially it appears as true. But really that is not true. They think that this world and our physical body are permanent and real. That is why they think that when the body dies you also end forever. The sensations are arising and dying. But I move from one sensation to another. Our Body is also a sensation. So, some kind of reality other than this body passes through this sensation to another which means from this body to another. Passing from one body to another is really a movement from one sensation to another sensation.
We try to solve the fundamental human problem of sorrow of death by understanding the real nature of our existence and what is really happening. In understanding the real nature of our existence we need to know what I am. Scientists can endlessly dig the brain and they can’t find anything more and incredible because all their concepts are based on sense of experiences where we are not sense of experiences which they will never aware of. The brain has only a limited function.
Atheists always ask for evidence. What is evidence? Evidence is also a sense of experience. Evidences have no value in understanding ourselves. Beyond a certain point we can’t depend on evidences. There is no soul. Really it is only a name to our real identify. Atheists imagine the soul as an existence separate from them and do all arguments. That is their mistake. But it is true that I and you exist. I and you are important not the soul. No evidence we need to see that.
You may not accept what I say. You definitely ask for evidence like Keiths. We can’t accept anything unless we see it directly. That is good. But I want to ask you the following questions.
Why don’t you show any interest to know what you are?
Why do you firmly believe without any doubts that this material world is real?
Why do you simply accept without any doubts that you are this physical body?
Like heart and kidney brain is also an organ composed with material molecules. So why do you think that brain is the whole show?
I don’t understand what you mean by common vocabulary. Please explain.
Keiths:
Keiths,
We talked about this already. Awareness is not continuous. Sensations can be interrupted, for example when we lose consciousness under the influence of general anesthesia.
Awareness depends on a functioning brain. When the relevant brain functions cease, whether temporarily or permanently, then awareness ceases.
Sriskandarajah,
When we feel a sense of experience we become aware of it. In the absence of sensations there is no awareness. Awareness and sense of experiences are interconnected. They are not separate. So under anesthesia sense of experiences cease. So awareness also ceases. Awareness is an action. So it can’t be continuous. Brain is the organ through which sense of experiences arise. When experiences arise I become aware of them. Awareness is not an existence. I am an existence.
Keiths,
You think we are something else, something that continues from body to body. What is that “something”, how do you know it exists, and how do you know that it continues from body to body? You haven’t presented any evidence for it.
Sriskandarajah,
That “something” is you. But you are not your body or sensations although you need them. Find out what you are. That is the prime question. You exist. What evidence you need for your existence?
This is easy for you to say. 🙂
And it would be lovely to switch my mind off from all the thoughts that race around in it so long as I could switch back on still remembering all the things I need to do later.
My daughter is a Buddhist. She is well aware of my scepticism of all things imaginary. She does not push the issue but I have a few books on the shelf from her which, out of respect for her, I have attempted to read. I quite like The Universe in a Single Atom by the Dalai Lama but I’m not persuaded by existence outside reality.
Alan,
That’s the sort of peace that meditation gives you (on the good days, anyway), and you don’t have to accept any woo to get the benefit. Just practice.
Think of it as being analogous to physical exercise — a way of getting your brain in better shape.
keiths:
Sriskandarajah:
I have plenty of evidence for my existence. What I don’t have — and what I’m asking you for — is evidence that I am something apart from my functioning body and brain, something that will survive the death of these things.
You speak of introspection as if it were evidence that we exist apart from our brains. I don’t see this at all. Why shouldn’t a physical brain be capable of introspection?
Keiths:
It is said that religious people have imaginations about God, soul and afterlife. But when you see the atheists they also have imaginations but in a different way thinking that they are scientific. You think that your brain and this world are independent existence. That is not real. That is also imagination. Can you prove that this world and your brain exist independently? You imagine that this world and brain are independent and separate existence so you ask the question why a physical brain shouldn’t be capable of introspection. Observing inwardly is introspection. What is observed is this world and brain. How can an observed thing have the capacity to observe other things? It is a wrong question. This question does not arise if you understand that your brain and your world exist only with you.
I didn’t say that we exist apart from our brains. We are not the brains and this world and my brain exist in me.
Sriskandarajah,
You keep changing your position, and it’s very hard to keep track of what you do and don’t claim any more. Are you hoping to stumble across a position that will actually hold up to scrutiny?
If so, you haven’t found it yet. Earlier, you indicated that you considered me to be a separate person. But I am part of this world, and you now say that this world and your brain exist “in you”. If so, that means that I exist “in you”, not separately. I am a figment of your imagination.
Is that really what you want to argue?
Keiths:
Why am I telling many things in this blog? In Science I am unable to find any answers to many questions although there are massive technological development in Science. Science has failed to explain our real existence and the reality of the material universe. I feel it very poor and limited and I feel that Science will never understand our reality. Under this situation why do atheists come with the conclusion that when the brain dies you are also gone forever and there is no another life? On what scientific grounds this statement is expressed? There may be no afterlife. But that is different. But on what scientific grounds they argue that there can’t be another life? The following are the evidences for their arguments to disprove some kind of existence other than brain.
Our consciousness ceases under anesthesia.
Our experiences are altered when the brain is altered by damages or by chemicals.
Alzheimer’s disease.
These evidences are related to sense of experiences and memory which are dependent on our brain.
There are many unanswered questions some of which are stated below.
What am I?
How all sense of experiences arises from the material molecules in the brain?
What is the process involved in my disappearance and appearance during deep sleep and waking state?
What is the reality of matter?
How and when matter came into existence?
How I am connected to this physical body?
Why all sensations are felt by me and how all sensations are channeled to me?
What is the living entity that struggle to exist and sometimes want to die?
The ultimate existence is energy. How do all different existence manifests from one source which is energy?
When there are unanswered questions how can you come with conclusions. There are unanswered questions so it doesn’t mean there is no another life. It also doesn’t mean that there is another life. But it is very clear that I am not this body or my sense of experiences.
When I eat a food the taste sensation arises. Where is the taste sensation? The taste sensation is in me. Likewise how do I recognize you? Only my sensations make me to understand your existence. But I don’t know really what you are. What I identify as “you” is only my sensations. Where are those sensations which make me to feel your presence? They are in me. It is very simple. It is not religion. But that doesn’t mean that you exist in me. Really you are a separate existence. It is not imagination. It is sensation. If I think when your body dies you also die that is an imagination which you all do. If I think when the body dies I will not die is not an imagination because I am very clear that I am not this brain.
Everything is sense of experiences. But they are not permanent. They appear and disappear. But when a sensation disappears I will not disappear. So it is very clear that I am not a sensation. This will open the door for further understanding. If you stagnate in a same position by opposing what I say then that is the end of your deep understanding.
I keep changing my position. Please tell me an example. I can explain my position. The body exists. So you exist. When the body dies you also dies forever. This is the only slogan you know. Do you know what you are? Do you know what this body is? Do you know anything deep?
There is some kind of existence other than this body. That is obvious. Under anesthesia the body exists. But I am not there. Why? When certain area of the brain begins to function after anesthesia I come back again. So the function makes an access for me to presence again? What is the function that allows me to be presence again? When the brain begins to function what come into being in addition to the molecular cells? Without knowing answers to such questions what capacity the science has to deny another life?
Perhaps you are asking questions for which there could be no answer.
Neil Rickert:
May be,there could be no answers to my questions. But without knowing answers to those questions how can we come to any conclusions about our present life and another life?
Don’t you think that the answers will reveal the mystery of our existence and solve the problem of sorrow of death?
Are the great Scientists and Philosophers writing books endlessly on self and brain without knowing answers to these questions?
Because there are questions that can be answered.
Your questions are not among them.
Petrushka:
There are questions that can be answered but not useful to understand our real identity and to solve the problem of sorrow of death. So those questions are not important at all.
Tell me one question you refer to.
You would have to ask someone working in the field what they see as solvable problems. Someone like Lizzie.
From where I stand I see potential for progress in treatment of brain diseases, brain trauma, psychoses, and improvements in educational technique. My own college speciality was mental retardation.
As for the problems of sorrow and death, I recommend the serenity prayer.
Sorrow and death are among the problems for which acceptance is in order. I see nothing to be gained by fooling ourselves.
Many people have been suffering from brain damage and spinal damage. Neuro science is still unable to heal even a slight damage in the brain and spinal cord.
So, why do people grieve if sorrow of death can be accepted?
It is not fooling ourselves but it is knowing ourselves which is a path to overcome the sorrow of death. By asking these questions myself I have understood many great things in solving the problem of death.Yet I have to understand further many more things.
You are correct that there are no effective treatments available for humans, but animal research indicates this is not going to be a permanent situation. In the meantime, we have functional vision restored by retinal implants , cochlear implants, pain suppression implants, and we are approaching a time when otherwise paralyzed people will be able to control devices by thoughts.
Slow progress and not knowing how to do stuff is not the same as it can’t be understood or done.
Sorrow and grief are unavoidable emotions resulting from loss. Sorrow and death are unavoidable; therefore, it is wise to find a way to accept them. You seem to be having difficulty accepting some of the less pleasant aspects of reality.
Sriskandarajah,
All of the evidence suggests that consciousness is dependent on the brain. When all of the evidence points to one conclusion, scientists accept that conclusion. Why shouldn’t they?
Your objection seems to be that the scientific conclusion doesn’t “solve the problem of sorrow of death”. So? There is no law of nature saying that the truth must be comforting. It is what it is.
Those are interesting questions, but the question in this thread is whether life continues after death. We don’t need to answer your many questions to answer this one. The evidence shows us that consciousness depends on a functioning brain. Our brains don’t continue to function after we die. Therefore, we conclude that consciousness ceases at death. Permanently.
If you think that it doesn’t, then the burden of proof is on you. Show us some evidence. Give us some reasons to believe your claims.
I understand that. But why do you believe it, when all of the evidence is against you?
I agree. I don’t think you are “a sensation”; I think you are your functioning brain and body.
You keep saying that it’s obvious, but it isn’t. All of the evidence points away from that conclusion. Why do you say that there is “some kind of existence other than this body”?
Do you want to live forever?