Death is the end of us. So says Physics

[Jagella]

Question for Debate: Is death the end of us?

One of the core doctrines of Christianity is that we live on forever--some of us in heaven, and the rest of us in hell. We must obey and believe Jesus to make it to the former and be saved from the latter. However, if death is the end of us, and our bodies and minds are no more, then this core doctrine of Christianity is false.

Physicist Sean Carroll confidently asserts that this core doctrine is false. He writes: "...there is no life after death. We each have a finite time as living creatures, and when it's over, it's over." What makes him so sure? He bases this assertion on what's known as the Core Theory of Physics. According to this theory, everything, and I mean everything, is made up of matter and forces. That's it. No spirits or ghosts. No souls in heaven or hell. All the information that makes up you and me is contained in us; namely, our brains. There is no way for that information to escape our bodies and be stored elsewhere. (1)

Which makes me a very happy man! I have no desire to forever sing the praises of a wrathful and violent god whom I know has destroyed the world and billions of people along with it. I prefer oblivion to such a horror.

(1) Sean Carroll, The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself, Page 218

[Diagoras]

[Replying to post 2 by Razorsedge]

As a rebuttal of the premise: “Consciousness is not observable, I’d direct you to this article which describes experiments conducted to test for consciousness:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ciousness/

Acknowledging that the article’s author does accept there’s still ‘a lot we don’t know’, it does however demonstrate that we can state with reasonable confidence that the seat of consciousness is located within the parietal lobe of the cerebral cortex.

[William]

@

Diagoras: we can state with reasonable confidence that the seat of consciousness is located within the parietal lobe of the cerebral cortex.

William: Even so, the statement of itself means little and goes no where near solving the problem of Consciousness.

[Diagoras]

Even so, the statement of itself means little and goes no where near solving the problem of Consciousness.

The purpose of my statement was to rebut the premise that consciousness cannot be observed. I contend that it achieves this.

It was never my intention to ‘solve’ the problem of consciousness. Given that, I’m happy to support my stated position if you disagree with its premise: consciousness can be observed.

[JJ50]

I hope science is correct.

[William]

@


Diagoras: we can state with reasonable confidence that the seat of consciousness is located within the parietal lobe of the cerebral cortex.

William: Even so, the statement of itself means little and goes no where near solving the problem of Consciousness.

Diagoras: The purpose of my statement was to rebut the premise that consciousness cannot be observed. I contend that it achieves this.

William: Even so...what you contend in relation to your post, doesn't show itself to have enough substance to make a great contention. It is lacking...

Diagoras: It was never my intention to ‘solve’ the problem of consciousness.

William: Even so, it certainly appears to be the intention of the OP argument. Since it is obvious you are siding with the idea that 'Physics has answered the problem of consciousness', claiming that 'the seat of consciousness is 'in the brain'. That type of contention, requires solid evidence.

Simply saying "reasonable confidence" doesn't really take the reader to that same place of assurance which those with the bias that 'we are the brain' believers lean towards.

Diagoras: Given that, I’m happy to support my stated position if you disagree with its premise: consciousness can be observed.

William: The wind can be observed. Do you therefore argue that the wind is 'seated' in the trees, or the clouds, or the wings of the butterfly? Is the wind any of those things which we observe the wind interacting with?
I doubt that anyone wanting to be taken seriously would argue for that.
The Theist argument is that Consciousness is not a 'thing' like the brain is a thing. When one attempts to tell a theist that Consciousness is the product of the brain, one forgets that one is explaining an interpretation of a phenomena = a phenomena in which the theist sees/interprets the SAME information, differently, but in which either side of the debate might be right.

The OP leaves no room for the possibility that the theists interpretation might indeed be the correct one.
Only DEATH (of the brain) will be able to positively tell the individual that the theist was correct about Consciousness - if indeed the individual continues to experience existing.
That is just the fact of the matter.
Observing how consciousness interacts with the brain and with the environment through biological forms, does not in itself prove consciousness is emergent of those forms. It - as evidence - can just as easily be interpreted as Consciousness is using the forms for the experience.

[Jagella]

One's 'ifs', 'maybes' and 'hypotheticals'.

IF one is correct that the death of the body is the end of us, THEN that would be correct. It would render all such theologies as fairly meaningless...IF death was indeed the end game.

I like to consider possibilities and then think of what logically follows. It's a good way to discover truths, in my opinion. So IF you disagree, then can you explain why?

One can of course 'confidently assert' whatever they wish. This in itself, does not make something so.

Who said that confidently asserting something makes something true? I didn't. What I did do is to scrutinize Sean Carroll's assertion to see what truth there is to it.

The idea obviously suits some positions rather than others, but that in itself is meaningless in terms of the hypothetical, and claiming there is no experience to be had after the death of the brain, relies heavily upon the belief that we are each our brains.
Maybe that is the case, and maybe not.

Maybe not. Carroll doesn't conclude that there is no life after death merely because he believes that "we are our brains." He bases his conclusion on the Core Theory of Physics which I cited in the OP. Did you read the OP?

If it turns out that when you die, you remain living and aware...

IF? I thought you don't like hypothetical scenarios?

Anyway, I could only survive my death if the Core Theory of physics is wrong.

...perhaps you will then wonder if that GOD actually exists and whether you will be forced to face him.

I have no idea what I might face post death, but I don't know how I could face anything if I had no face.

Whoops! You never thought of that? I have noticed that those who speak of spirits leaving the body speak of those spirits as bodies.

Anyway, if I do "face" God, I might ask him why he finally showed up after I died rather than while I was still alive. He's evidently unwilling to show himself to living people and prefers the dead.

[Bust Nak]

URANUS UBERSOAKERS OF THE YELLOW KIND! Yes, it's hot and we declare for relief -- but this is too much! There is life after death maybe in video poker, cable and internet documentaries, NFL refutations of "no tomorrow." Come off it already -- ghosts are what may appear if you're really, really hungover, or have been kneeling too long on corn kernels.

Moderator Comment

You don't have to respond, but if you do, it can't be frivolous.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[William]

@



William: One's 'ifs', 'maybes' and 'hypotheticals'.

IF one is correct that the death of the body is the end of us, THEN that would be correct. It would render all such theologies as fairly meaningless...IF death was indeed the end game.

Jagella: I like to consider possibilities and then think of what logically follows. It's a good way to discover truths, in my opinion.

William: Me too. I agree with you there.

Jagella:So IF you disagree, then can you explain why?


William: I don't know - I tend to agree that considering all possibilities can usually get one closer to discovering truths, especially with things.
The metaphysical has different properties which can be experienced subjectively only by the individual.
As is the case, in order to consider the metaphysical the individual would have to experience that.
To claim 'the brain did it' when one does not even understand what 'it' is, is an inadequate explanation for anyone who has experienced alternate realities, other than for those who believe that the imagination is simply 'powerful' but cannot be trusted as giving us 'real' experiences. Essentially then, what is being argued is that IF I am the brain THEN I am not to be trusted.
One can of course 'confidently assert' whatever they wish. This in itself, does not make something so.

Jagella: Who said that confidently asserting something makes something true? I didn't.

William: "Death is the end of us." would fall under the category of an example of 'confidently asserting something'. I was answering the OPBlurb - specific to your quoting Sean Carroll.
I understand that just because someone uses another persons position of argument, does not necessarily mean that they are asserting that the argument they are using is one they themselves believe in.

Jagella: What I did do is to scrutinize Sean Carroll's assertion to see what truth there is to it.

William: And what did you discover therein? Something you would argue as 'truth' or 'false'? Or perhaps only another opinion?
The idea obviously suits some positions rather than others, but that in itself is meaningless in terms of the hypothetical, and claiming there is no experience to be had after the death of the brain, relies heavily upon the belief that we are each our brains.
Maybe that is the case, and maybe not.

Jagella: Maybe not. Carroll doesn't conclude that there is no life after death merely because he believes that "we are our brains." He bases his conclusion on the Core Theory of Physics which I cited in the OP. Did you read the OP?

William: Yes...I even quoted and replied to the OP.
I saw no evidence in the OP that lead me to any other conclusion, nor have you yourself offered any.
If it turns out that when you die, you remain living and aware...

Jagella: IF? I thought you don't like hypothetical scenarios?

William: Why do you think that of me/my position? Hypotheticals are fine as long as we do not allow them to evolve into unproven 'truth'. Anything unproven cannot be regarded as truth, simply because we might want it to be that way.

Jagella: Anyway, I could only survive my death if the Core Theory of physics is wrong.


William: Well what about this theory convinces you that the 'if' above, is not an option and there will be no chance of you wondering upon entering the Next Phase, if that nasty idea of GOD actually exists and whether you will be forced to face him.

Jagella: I have no idea what I might face post death, but I don't know how I could face anything if I had no face.

William: The idea that we may well create our own reality upon shifting from this phase to the next has much appeal to me as an overall way in which to deal with individuate consciousnesses in controlled environments.
But, that is for another topic. It is enough that you say 'you have no idea' rather than argue "It is not going to happen because Sean Carroll's assertion has explained it to me."


Jagella: Whoops! You never thought of that? I have noticed that those who speak of spirits leaving the body speak of those spirits as bodies.

William: What I speak of is individuate consciousnesses creating their own realities.
Often these are based on things which the individuals are used to, having engaged with the habit of being human, they often resort to creating that which is familiar, which is reasonable to expect to see.
So yes - I have indeed 'thought of that'.

Jagella: Anyway, if I do "face" God, I might ask him why he finally showed up after I died rather than while I was still alive. He's evidently unwilling to show himself to living people and prefers the dead.

William: The point I have been attempting to make is that IF there is an afterlife to experience, and IF the experience is largely the creation of the one experiencing it and IF they do not themselves even realize this is the case, THEN whatever issues they have not dealt with regarding their own ideas of GODs and afterlife, will - more than likely - be exhibited for them to deal with.
To give context to that idea;

IF an atheist winds up in an afterlife experience having lived his life convinced that there would be no afterlife to experience, he is already going to be on the back-foot.
Add to that, he has spent a large part of his life arguing with theists who have told him if he does not believe in GOD and the afterlife, he will 'burn forever in hell.'

It would seem natural enough for that individual now faced with the reality that there IS more to experience after their brain died, that he might worry about what else he was incorrect about, and the idea of a GOD and going to hell might be right up there in the worry department.
IF, the properties of the Astral Realm respond to the thoughts of the individual, and instantly manifest those thoughts into something which can be experienced immediately, said atheist is in a substantial predicament, largely of his own making, even that he doesn't realize it is his own making.

[Jagella]

URANUS UBERSOAKERS OF THE YELLOW KIND! Yes, it's hot and we declare for relief -- but this is too much! There is life after death maybe in video poker, cable and internet documentaries, NFL refutations of "no tomorrow." Come off it already -- ghosts are what may appear if you're really, really hungover, or have been kneeling too long on corn kernels.

Yes, experiences with the dead are often hallucinatory or are tales meant to scare people around campfires. In all of human history there are no such stories that have good enough evidence to be seen as historical. Nevertheless, we do have believers who may not wish to let go of hope for an afterlife.

[Mithrae]

Philosophers have 'known' for centuries that substance dualism is incoherent, though of course being philosophers they've still argued about it and created new words and concepts to get around its incoherency. Basically if anything such as a soul (or a God) were truly and completely non-'physical', it would be incoherent to talk about it interacting in any way with 'physical' stuff because the two substances would by definition share no similar properties which could interact. Ironically that is precisely the concept which physics is entirely unable to investigate or contradict, since a completely non-physical 'soul' would by definition be entirely undetectable by physical means; so on that score we're still left with the simple incoherency of the concept.

What seems to be in view in the article linked in the OP would perhaps be something along the lines of an interactionist property dualism. Property dualism suggests an irreducible ontological distinction between mind and matter; but, rather than supposing that mental states can be causally reduced to physical states (as seems to be the norm for property dualism), an interactionist perspective would have causation going both ways. Basically a slightly watered-down variation of substance dualism in other words, in which bodies and minds interact causally with each other and are significantly different types of things, but not completely so; they have different properties rather than being different 'substances.'

In that case, physicists can perhaps confirm that there are no 'physical' forces or particles causally influencing our behaviour besides those of the brain itself and normal, known environmental influences.

He bases this assertion on what's known as the Core Theory of Physics. According to this theory, everything, and I mean everything, is made up of matter and forces. That's it. No spirits or ghosts. No souls in heaven or hell. All the information that makes up you and me is contained in us; namely, our brains. There is no way for that information to escape our bodies and be stored elsewhere. (1)

That second sentence appears to be incorrect; the author himself notes (eventually) that the fermions and bosons of the 'Core Theory' comprise only about 5% of the estimated mass-energy of the observable universe, and hence that his explanation covers 'only' the domain of everything that we see and do and experience.

As such, he may well be correct that even watered-down substance dualism/interactionist property dualism can now be ruled out on the basis of modern physics. But again as he explicitly notes, while it may rule out the existence of souls as a causal agency on our living bodies, it doesn't rule out souls as a product:

• Any soul that exists would have to be epiphenomenal: causally impotent in the same way the naturalist will view the mental. Naturalism is the view that the physical exists (the spatiotemporal world) and if the mental exists it is explained by the physical. A naturalist can technically be a platonic realist but will agree that numbers have no causal effectiveness. But a causally impotent soul is almost worthless, as almost every version of theism—certainly every popular version, insists that our soul explain human behavior to some degree, ie. it has causally effectiveness on the human body.

In other words, it's certainly an interesting point of discussion which may disprove some doctrines of Christianity or other religions... but the actual thread title is incorrect, as far as I can tell: One possibility which is not ruled out by the article is the possibility of an epiphenomenal soul influenced or initially produced by and causally ineffective on our living bodies, which may or may not continue to exist and experience consciousness after our bodies' death.