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."
Perhaps that is also true. Because we don’t want our loved ones to die. We want to have them forever. That is our passion. But living is really a struggle. We need oxygen every minute. We need food every day. We have to earn for our livelihood. We have to protect ourselves from germs, diseases, war, cyclone, earth quake, accidents, human violence and so many dangerous things. Living and existing are different things. When we are sleeping we don’t live. But we exist. So we want to exist without annihilation.
What we are all doing in this world apart from eating and taking care of our body? We live and die without knowing what we are. What is the use of the marvelous science and atheism?
It is not my craving to live forever. But I want to know what really exist and what is really happening.
If I know the truth of my existence then death will not be a problem to me.
Whenever we have a problem it is natural we try to solve it. Because a problem creates an uncomfortable feeling. I have the problem of sorrow of death. So I want to solve it. That doesn’t mean that I want to live forever. When I have a pain I run to the hospital. Is it to live forever?
Scientists are seriously aware of the people who are suffering from various diseases. So they are engaged in researches to cure them. Do they want them to live forever? Don’t you see the people all over the world irrespective of their beliefs light candles and remember the dead people with enormous sadness. Why? Don’t they feel uncomfortable? Some people try to contact their loved ones through medium in a desperate state. Why? They know science is helpless. So they do all those things.
I read in the news papers that Scientists do research to extend the human life span to 1000 years and even to attain physical immortality by altering the genes. When scientists pay immense attention to live forever why do you ask me that question? But those Scientists do not know what they want to keep immortal since everything is mortal in our physical structure.
But not all the Scientists accept that conclusion. Good Scientists accept that Consciousness poses the most baffling problems in science. What are the all evidences? What are the conclusions? Please tell me one important evidence to see whether I knew it earlier and whether it has any value at all. Don’t you see that your brain is in your consciousness? Only after you are conscious you are able to feel the existence of brain? So, where is your brain? Is it not in your consciousness? Can you understand your brain in the absence of consciousness? Consciousness is dependent on the brain is a wrong understanding. Evidences also found through consciousness. So how can consciousness understand consciousness? How can brain understand brain? So what is the truth? Really truth is something else.
Do you know all the laws of the nature? Is there any law to say that all the laws are always permanent? Perhaps if you come to know all the laws of nature your conclusions may change.
I feel happy when you say that my questions are interesting. If your scientists concluded that there is no after life then why do you question whether life continues after death? Do you doubt your Scientists? If you know the answers to my questions you will come to know what happens after we die. Answer to your one question will not reveal that truth. It is not so easy like Scientists cutting the brain to see what is inside. We don’t keep any old and unusable things in our house. So let the brain go. Why do we need its malfunction? Don’t you like to have a new brain? You say that consciousness ceases at death permanently. Here what do you mean by consciousness that ceases at death permanently?
Although I use the term consciousness really there is no such thing as consciousness. Scientists have a wrong concept. We have only sense of experiences. Really sense of experiences depends on brain. That is why damages in the brain affect our sensations. Sense of experiences comes to an end when our brain dies. But that is already been happening now before death.
Please tell me one evidence that is against me.
You say that I am the functioning brain. You can’t just say that. You should explain very clearly how I could be the functioning brain. I don’t ask you any evidence. I don’t believe in evidences. What does the brain do? What is the result of the brain function? Am I the functioning brain? In what sense? When you say that I am the functioning brain do you mean that I perform the brain functions or I am the result of brain function?
When you have a severe pain you become one with the pain sensation. You cannot separate you from the pain sensation. There is no separate “you” and separate pain. When the pain sensation dies you will not die with the pain sensation. That is the mystery. That is why I say that you exist as sensation but you are not the sensation. That is very clear.
Because body is also a sensation whereas I cannot be a sensation. Sensations arise and die but I witness all the sensations. You have the feeling of your body so you say that body exists. You see the bodies of others. You can touch them (with permission). So you say that there is the existence of other bodies. Seeing and touching are sensations. That is why you think it is an existence. That is why you make all the arguments based on the body. If you understand that you are not this body then you will come to know that there is some kind of existence other than this body and thereafter your conclusions seem to be invalid.
It is not wise to find a way to accept them. Because there is no way. It is wise to understand what I am really. That is the only way. Why can’t the science find what I am really?
If you can find no way to accept reality, you have a personal problem.
No! No! It is a common problem. Are you not aware of the grieving people in this world? Then you have no problem of death. Good!
If a person is hungry you can say him to accept the reality. Very good!
What do you mean by reality? We fall sick. That is also a reality. So we have to accept that.
May be, I take the common problem as my problem. That is why I have been searching the reality of my existence. Accepting is not the answer.
Very well, then. Don’t die. See if I care.
Ask again in 1000 years. Science is in it’s infancy relatively speaking.
If I can do that all can do that. Then the problem of death and my questions would not arise. You want to give a negative answer so you give without a meaning. If you are not interested you don’t worry about.
I observe that people are specific configurations of matter.When the configuration ceases, the person ceases. Lots of people have wished it were some other way, but wishing doesn’t make it happen.
You are telling a very old idea. It is a very childish explanation. Please tell something deep.
Who wished to make the specific configurations of matter?
What is the purpose of this specific configurations of matter?
It is a reality-based explanation. Do you have an actual argument against it or are you just going to mock it?
Mu.
Something like “Unask the question“, if I’m correct, right? Is that convention here? I would have chosen for something like http://www.twonkhammer.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Implied-Facepalm.jpg, but then I’m not yet entirely familiar with the style of moderating applied here.
People grieving for the loss of a loved one is a real thing. For those people, the loss is very real. And the loss may pose a problem for them in more than one way. For me, the prospect of one day dying is no fun thought. I could even call it a problem, because I really don’t feel like dying, and I’m going to bet that I won’t feel like dying fifty years from now, when I’m old and bent and grey and I’m looking for my teeth all the time.
But what’s your point here, exactly?
What, exactly, is the problem? Are you like me, afraid of death? Afraid of the notion that you’ll no longer be able to taste the joys of the world – even though there will be no more ‘you’ to miss out on tasting them? Or do you mean something else?
One may ask the purpose of life, and many do, but I would ask the purpose of purpose.
The purpose of purpose… Wait, don’t tell me – they taught me that one in kindergarten!
That’s how I intended it, yes.
I don’t know if we have conventions here. You can, however, insert images with the img tag, if you like.
Gralgrathor,
I inserted the img tag so your image would display. The Cohen Bros are excellent.
The purpose of life, is life.
The purpose of my life is to invent self-slicing bread.
And the purpose of Sriskandarajah’s life, apparently, is to worry about death.
Sriskandarajah,
You are very confused about this. The fact that the brain is represented in consciousness does not mean that the brain is dependent on consciousness for its existence. Likewise, the fact that a waterfall is represented in consciousness doesn’t mean that the waterfall depends on consciousness for its existence.
Exactly. We have sensations when our brain is functioning in a certain way. When the brain no longer functions that way — say, when we’re under anesthesia or in a coma — we no longer have those sensations.
So if something survives our death, it ain’t sensations. What is it, then, and how do you know that it survives?
The two split-brain threads, along with this one, are full of evidence against your view. Can you give one piece of evidence in favor of your view that life continues after death?
I doubt that very much. I think you use evidence all the time, as when you look for traffic before crossing the road. It’s just that you don’t like the evidence that I am presenting, because it indicates that we do not survive death. That’s not the answer you want to hear.
No properly functioning brain –> no Sriskandarajah. No Sriskandarajah –> no properly functioning brain.
No, we do not “become one” with the pain sensation. If we did, then by wishing for the pain to end we would be wishing for our own death.
keiths:
Sriskandarajah:
The body is not a sensation. It is a physical object. Bodily sensations are not the same thing as the body itself.
I await evidence that I exist apart from my body. Do you have any such evidence? If not, then why do you believe it?
I am very clear in my understanding. You say that the fact that the brain is represented in consciousness. So representation of brain cannot arise in the absence of consciousness. So consciousness should have existed prior to representation of the brain. But according to you, prior to consciousness brain should exist to create the consciousness. It is very clear that consciousness should exist prior to the representation of brain. But nobody knows what existed prior to consciousness. We don’t know that brain would have existed prior to consciousness. What you know as a brain is only a representation. Not the reality. It is your thought that makes the representation as real.So everything is a representation of consciousness. You are an atheist. Do you believe in any existence outside your sensations? Can you imagine the existence of water fall outside the representation? Can you prove its existence apart from your sensations? So we exist in a world which is a representation of consciousness.
Under anesthesia or in a coma state I still exist without experiencing anything. That is why I am able to return.
The reality which witnesses the sensations survives?
Is it your good evidence? I knew it already. But not a reliable one at all.
Evidences have its value up to certain limit. Not always. I directly see the traffic but not with evidence.
If the brain does not function properly I do not get sensations properly. I am there not as Sriskandarajah. If I change the name where is Sriskandarajah?
I am separate from pain sensation. But I take the form of pain sensation. Now I come to what you say. So you are separate from pain sensation. According to Neurology brain creates the pain sensation and you feel the pain sensation. Am I correct? So what is that “you” which feel the pain sensation? In what form the pain sensation arise and in what form you exist to feel it? How you are connected to pain sensation?
How do you know that there is a body exists apart from your sensations? There may something but that is not what you see as body. What you see is a representation. That representation is a makeup. Since the representation is not a reality ending of the representation is also not a reality.
I exist apart from my body that is why I am able to transplant organs and tissues and when my body cells die and new cells are born I am able to continue to exist.
You may think that the brain does the transplantation. If the brain is damaged I may lose certain functions and sensations. If medical science is able to regenerate the damage brain I can regain my lost functions and sensations again. So it is understood that I exist apart from my body.
Sensations arise and die. But I continue to exist.
We worry about starvation so we cultivate food. I worry about death so it made me to ask very interesting questions.But I am not always worry about death. I meditate and see the beauty and the peace of the stillness of mind. I look after my family. I do my work perfectly. It is a part of my life. I asked the purpose of this body which is made prior to my presence in this world. So I asked the questions. How many comments were sent without any impression.
You are obviously confusing two things here: the representation of the brain (ie. the thinking about a brain) and the brain itself. So we’ll skip the part of your response that is affected by your mistake.
Are you a solipsist? Do you believe that all existence is subjective, not just your perceptions of it? If so, then it’s probably best if we skip further discussion altogether, for nothing will come of it.
If you’re not a solipsist, and if you are interested in discussing your views on consciousness, then you should probably try to do so in words that can be understood. The above quote doesn’t mean a whole lot to me.
And so we get back to the essential question. I posit that I am my brain, or rather the intricate interactions of matter and energy taking place in my brain and body (for the body outside the brain has no small part in the forming of our personalities).
Because your memory gives you the sensation of identity. It is your memory that tells you that there is an unbroken thread between you-now and you-then, whether that is true or not. Should it be possible to completely replace your memory with a different set, then “you’d” still think there was an unbroken thread, even though “you”-now would no longer be “you”-then: it’d be a different thread, a different life, a different person, a different you.
Good move, Gralgrathor. Blog-owner Dr Liddle has often emphasized this point.
In computers it makes sense to talk about memory as something different from the processor, but in brains, the processing and memory are the configuration of neurons and connections. The configuration is the memory. It is the configuration that remains stable during sleep and anesthesia. it is the configuration that doesn’t get erased when we are unconscious and is not lost as individual atoms are replaced during metabolism.
It is the configuration that gradually frays (not unlike fraying fabric) with age, in a way that the cloth remains recognizable as the same, but worn.
This is true, but that doesn’t mean that the configuration representing a particular type of memories necessarily spans the entire brain. The memory/consciousness complex isn’t exactly holographic. There are discrete sections and discrete pathways. Neuroscience has made some progress on tracking, isolating and even manipulating particular memories (my terminology may be vague or inaccurate here: I am not an expert), so what I’m saying isn’t, I think, completely out of the realm of the possible or the real.
Not holographic in the sense that every part can represent the whole, but holographic in the sense that any small part destroyed does not destroy the sense of self.
As I age I have increased difficulty recalling seldom used words.
(A good reason to argue with people online, to keep the memory refreshed.)
But I remain me, despite the fact that the film is getting grainier, or the pixels bigger.
Quite right! But then that is exactly what I said too:
Changing your memories would not change the fact that you’d have the illusion of an unbroken thread of self. But it’d be a different self – even if only by the breadth of a single memory. The consciousness/memory complex would have changed, but there’d be no awareness of any change – no sense of any difference in the self.
Sriskandarajah,
Thank you for using <blockquote> tags. Your comments are much easier to read now!
(Alan didn’t do that for you, did he? 🙂 )
Sriskandarajah:
I know. I was just teasing you in the spirit of the preceding “the purpose of life is…” jokes.
Sriskandarajah,
Sure. In fact, most of us believe that the real world exists independently of us.
Not in the sense of absolute certainty, but sure, there’s very good evidence that the waterfall continues to exist when I am not thinking about it or perceiving it.
Are you trying to argue that my consciousness creates my brain, rather than vice-versa?
You are only able to “return” if the brain returns to proper functioning. After death, the brain doesn’t return to proper functioning.
keiths:
Sriskandarajah:
Why do you consider it unreliable? Do you consider all science to be unreliable?
Also, you haven’t answered my question:
Sriskandarajah:
Sensory evidence is still evidence.
The brain. Don’t make the homunculus error.
As with the waterfall, I don’t know it with absolute certainty, but it’s a good inference for the same reasons.
If my brain were transplanted into your skull, and vice-versa, which would be the “real” Sriskandarajah? Keith’s body with Sriskandarajah’s brain, or Sriskandarajah’s body with Keith’s brain?
Gralgrathor :
Thank you for responding to my comments. I like to answer you after answering Keiths. Please wait.
Why does this bring to mind poor quality black and white camera-work, women running past screaming in the foreground while stuff crashes noisily to the ground erupting in flames further back?
Petrushka:
I agree that we have to accept death with grief since there is no alternative. What to do? Science is silent. Atheists are helpless. But at the same time while accepting, it is wise to understand really what we are.
Not quite. We’re making some good progress on the mechanisms of ageing.
I wouldn’t say helpless. I did take that course in self-defence that time.
We do not appear to exist except as a transient configuration of matter. Does a flame have an existence aside from the molecules involved in combustion?
I would say we “really” are something like a flame.
In what sense you are really something like a flame? Is it because your physical body and mind are always changing and everything is transient in your mental and physical structure?that i know. But you continue to exist in this changing structure and also witness all the changes going on in you. There is no “you” in a candle flame. There is no sufferings or enjoyments in a candle flame.
You say that we do not appear to exist except as a transient configuration of matter.But you still exist in the transient configuration of matter. How it happens?
A flame does not have an existence aside from the molecules involved in combustion. But there is no feeling of heat in a flame.
So death is a problem to scientists. What is it that want to exist by slowing the aging progress? There should be some other existence to continue to exist. What is it?
Sriskandarajah,
Are you implying that there is a static, unchanging “you”, separate from your mind and body, that witnesses the changes going on in your mind and body?
If so, then I would again suggest that you are making the homunculus error.
You are your changing brain and body, and there is nothing contradictory or incoherent about the idea that a changing brain can be aware of the fact that it is changing. There is no need for a static, unchanging “you” off to the side, witnessing these changes.
Petrushka:
It seems that you don’t accept any thing except matter. Do you accept that you exist? If so,you exist as matter. Matter represents you. Really what is matter? Do you need a particular and same matter to represent you? If not, why can’t the matter in a new born baby represent you again?
You can’t actually know that.
No, death is a problem for individual humans which science may help postpone.
I do.
Why?
Please do not bring this homunculus which is a very peculiar and useless idea expressed by someone who could not understand what really happens in the brain.
I don’t know who explained this homunculus error. But I read it. It is very dangerous idea. A very superstitious explanation. He was only able to think in such a stupid way.
There is no need of any thing like homunculus. Don’t think in such a way to answer my question that we need for a static, unchanging “you” off to the side, witnessing these changes. There is an understanding of this real phenomena of experiencing. But not as you think. I have already heard all such bad explanations.
I don’t know what the limitations of matter are, or why we should call anything that can be shown to exist anything other than matter.
I can think of lots of reasons why people cease to exist when their configuration of matter ceases to maintain itself.
You don’t want to call anything other than matter.You also don’t know what matter is. Then why you call person? Does the person refers to a particular form with a complexion? So that particular form ceases to exist when the configuration of matter ceases. Is that you say? When configuration of matter ceases nothing is lost. Again the configuration of matter begins. So what is it that dies or come to an end? The person? The form with a name?
You can’t imagine anything unless you see it. What you see is the representation in consciousness.For many thousand years human beings are programmed to believe the independence existence of world for the purpose of living.
Don’t you need consciousness to know the brain? Why do you need consciousness to know the existence of brain?
keiths: You are only able to “return” if the brain returns to proper functioning. After death, the brain doesn’t return to proper functioning.
Sriskandarajah:
Why do I need the same brain to come back again? What is that relationship I have with my brain? Where and how I am located in my brain? Neuro Scientists explain many functions of the brain. You say that I am the brain. But I am not doing all those functions except a few.
keiths: Why do you consider it unreliable? Do you consider all science to be unreliable?
But limited.
Sensory evidence is still evidence within sensory experiences. Our senses and brain are limited. So sensory evidences are limited. Sensory evidence is incapable to find anything if exists beyond sensory experiences.
It is an imagination or hallucination of an ignorant. Keith, I don’t mean you. You don’t say that.
Brain feels the pain sensation not you because you are the brain. Which produces the pain sensation? Is it also your brain? Since you are the brain you produce the pain sensation. What a funny thing? Since you produce the pain sensation don’t you know how it arises and don’t you know to stop it?
Which part of the brain? Please don’t just say brain. Please specify. Why do you bring the homunculus which is a very peculiar explanation of somebody who could not understand the brain function?
What is that “you” which feel the pain sensation is an important question. There is no need for a homunculus in the brain. It is a foolish idea. There is a real answer. I need the real answer. Those who are unable to understand the question and unable to find the answer in a realistic manner think of a homunculus which is a superstitious idea. Why you also bring this stupidity in this discussion?
Keiths:
As with the waterfall, I don’t know it with absolute certainty, but it’s a good inference for the same reasons.
Sriskandarajah:
The problem is that you don’t know it with absolute certainty.
I agree that we have to accept death with grief since there is no alternative. What to do? Science is silent. Atheists are helpless. But at the same time while accepting, it is wise to understand really what we are.
It is a real problem in the search of the “me” and my real identity.
I sit in a chair and I am tied to the chair. If the chair is lifted my physical body and myself also get lifted with the chair since my body is located in the chair and myself is located in my body. Likewise when our brains are exchanged, your self and my self may also get transferred since we are located in the brains but not as homunculus. If we exchange our kidneys transfer of selves does not happen.
Now the problem is not that. Where we are located in the brain since there are many different areas and billions of neurons in the brain? In other way, transplantation of which part of the brain determines the transfer of our selves?
In my explanation I didn’t mention about the transplantation of our brains as mentioned above. I pointed out the regeneration of damaged brain in a same body. By a way, the damaged cells are slowly regenerating like the regeneration of our muscular cells. When regeneration takes place what will happen to me? Am I slowly get lost forever as normal death? Will the real Sriskandarajah (as you say) get lost or continue to exist with a new brain as existed before?
What it refers to real Sriskandarajah? You specifically say “real” Sriskandarajah because unknowingly you have in intimation that you are something separate but you could not accept anything other than the body since human beings have the strong memory that they are their bodies.
What is that “you”?