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

[Swami]

If you wish to challenge my view of consciousness, then you must falsify the Core Theory of Physics. Can you falsify that theory?

That's not the way it works. Your science doesn't automatically trump my science. I use Eastern science and it predicts that higher levels of consciousness can be reached via meditation. So far, Western scientists have confirmed this with experiments showing that meditation can increase awareness of our unconscious mind (refer here). This is a higher level of consciousness than what average people tend to have. Can you imagine even higher levels of consciousness than this?... I can. An even higher or fuller expression of consciousness reached through meditation... a consciousness that is as boundless as the Universe, one that is in and part of everything. I've experienced all of this.

I've often wondered why if the consciousness can exist without a brain, then what is it doing stuck to a brain to begin with?

This is nothing more than materialist nonsense. I've offered to debate anyone on religious experience and conversion, some of my evidence involves those who have experienced things while being out of their body.

Consciousness is not matter; it's the energy in the brain. It is what the brain does.

You and your scientists are speaking from limited experience, literally.

Western scientists have so much that they do not know or perhaps they don't want you to know!

Is it a conspiracy?

I have no hard evidence but scientists working for the government have experimented with anomalous conscious experiences like remote viewing. They know there's something to it but they're unwilling to share it for national security reasons.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to post 15 by William]

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

If you’re going to claim that my point lacks substance, you’re going to have to back that up by showing specifically what’s wrong with it. All I’ve posted is a rebuttal of the claim that consciousness cannot be observed. I did this by providing a link to an article describing such observations.

On this specific debate point, I’d expect either some evidence to support the case that consciousness cannot be observed, or for you to show that my evidence is in some way flawed. The former requires ‘proof of a negative’, which is near-impossible. There may be some logical reduction ad absurdum argument possible, but absent that, I’d welcome the latter. Where – specifically – does my argument contain flaws?

Moving on to a couple of other points:

I understood the OP’s question for debate to be: “Is death the end of us?� That’s not the same as “Can we solve (prove) consciousness?� Yes, I support the OP’s statement, but that doesn’t require me to do anything like solve the mind/body problem.

You talk about ‘reasonable confidence’ as if it’s somehow unsatisfactory. I submit that we can agree that “no-one currently has a solution to the mind/body problem that provides absolute certainty.� Is that a statement that you support? If so, then let’s work with that assumption, rather than demand something from me that we both agree isn’t possible.

You gave a ‘wind’ analogy, but this is a rather weak analogy to use (a ‘straw man’). It is very easy to run an experiment to observe the wind through some trees, then cut down the trees and observe the wind still blows. Similarly, as my linked article described, the spinal cord and cerebellum could be damaged, without affecting a person’s level of consciousness. In the same way that careful measurements of air pressure provide a working theory (and allow meteorological predictions) of wind, careful measurements of brain activity provide a working theory of which specific areas of the brain ‘house’ consciousness – enough to allow neurosurgeons to remove tumours. I contend your analogy actually supports my position, rather than weakens it.

A bit later on in your post, you set out the premise that “consciousness is not a ‘thing’ like the brain�. We can agree on that. A common dictionary definition has it as ‘the state of being aware and responsive to one’s surroundings’. Can we agree on that? It would be useful to nail down what exactly is being discussed, as I sense you’re a bit frustrated that both sides use terms differently.

Your final two sentences:

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.

You say ‘just as easily’ as if there were similar amounts and quality of evidence for consciousness emerging from non-brains. That’s an unsupported statement. We may never solve the ‘how’ and the ‘why’ (and debating that would really be better off in the philosophy sub-forum) but the ‘what’, i.e. “consciousness can be observed, is seated in the brain and ceases at death� can be stated as true (and yes, with ‘reasonable confidence’), based on available scientific evidence.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to post 21 by Razorsedge]

That's not the way it works. Your science doesn't automatically trump my science. I use Eastern science

Taking the above along with this from the same post:

I have no hard evidence but scientists working for the government have experimented with anomalous conscious experiences like remote viewing. They know there's something to it but they're unwilling to share it for national security reasons.

Bolding mine
If we’re debating in a sub-forum specifically focussed on science, then there’s no ‘yours’ versus ‘mine’. It’s all science. And it’s either supported by evidence or it isn’t. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed until evidence is produced. Otherwise, we can’t progress beyond the ludicrous (e.g. Russell’s teapot argument).

This isn’t to say that I don’t believe you’ve had the experiences you’ve mentioned. But personal anecdotes really do not hold much weight when considered as scientific evidence.

[Swami]

[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.

People who have impaired brain function are still able to have rich conscious experiences. This is documented in NDE cases.

https://iands.org/news/news/research-ne ... cisms.html

[Diagoras]

[Replying to post 18 by William]

Apologies for the run of posts, but I spotted one other interesting comment made by William:

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

My observation is, can’t we equally state:

“claiming there is an experience to be had after the death of the brain, relies heavily upon the belief that we are each our brains plus some metaphysical part.�

[William]

@

Diagoras:If you’re going to claim that my point lacks substance, you’re going to have to back that up by showing specifically what’s wrong with it. All I’ve posted is a rebuttal of the claim that consciousness cannot be observed. I did this by providing a link to an article describing such observations.

William:I did point out what was wrong with your point. It lacked substance. It didn't really make a point.
I am interested in debating with you rather than being linked to other material written by someone else, who I cannot debate with in this forum unless they become a Member.


Diagoras:On this specific debate point, I’d expect either some evidence to support the case that consciousness cannot be observed, or for you to show that my evidence is in some way flawed.

William:What evidence?
I always make it clear what I am speaking to which I think of as Consciousness.
I did not disagree with you that Consciousness cannot observe itself - I just disagreed that we can deduce from that, that we should assume that what is being observed is Consciousness, rather than the result of consciousness interacting with the Physical Universe.


Diagoras:The former requires ‘proof of a negative’, which is near-impossible. There may be some logical reduction ad absurdum argument possible, but absent that, I’d welcome the latter. Where – specifically – does my argument contain flaws?

William:In that you appear to be arguing that you are observing Consciousness AS the physical Universe, rather than Consciousness interacting WITH the Physical Universe.


Diagoras:Moving on to a couple of other points:

I understood the OP’s question for debate to be: “Is death the end of us?� That’s not the same as “Can we solve (prove) consciousness?� Yes, I support the OP’s statement, but that doesn’t require me to do anything like solve the mind/body problem.

William:I see no difference in one supporting that death is the end of us "because" the physical brain dies and we as consciousness are a product of the physical brain, so must also die and the claim that "we have solved the problem of Consciousness 'because' the physical brain dies and we as consciousness are a product of the physical brain, so must also die."
If you can tell the difference, please let the reader know.


Diagoras:You talk about ‘reasonable confidence’ as if it’s somehow unsatisfactory.

William:In regard to the problem of Consciousness, it most certainly is unsatisfactory. One simply is required to be certain, either way.


Diagoras:I submit that we can agree that “no-one currently has a solution to the mind/body problem that provides absolute certainty.� Is that a statement that you support?

William:Sure! That is what I have always said, and will continue to say, as long as we are not certain. "Reasonable confidence" is not going to achieve that, on account of the uncertainty which naturally remains.

Diagoras:If so, then let’s work with that assumption, rather than demand something from me that we both agree isn’t possible.

William:So then we can agree that, evidence for either way is impossible for either of us to produce for the other.
If you are saying this, then of course, I agree.

Diagoras: You gave a ‘wind’ analogy, but this is a rather weak analogy to use (a ‘straw man’).

William: When it comes to the problem of Consciousness, no physical object is really going to adequately represent Consciousness.

Diagoras:It is very easy to run an experiment to observe the wind through some trees, then cut down the trees and observe the wind still blows.

William: It is also very easy to get the gist of my use of the wind as an analogy for consciousness, rather than the trees, clouds and butterflies etc...Take away the things we associate with the wind, and the wind still remains?
The point I was attempting to convey to the reader is that we do not call the trees the reason for the wind existing, even that - like the brain reacts to the consciousness using it - the trees react to the wind.

Diagoras: I contend your analogy actually supports my position, rather than weakens it.

William: Either way, my analogy supports both views equally....'straw-man' notwithstanding.

Diagoras: A bit later on in your post, you set out the premise that “consciousness is not a ‘thing’ like the brain�. We can agree on that.

William:Yes, we can.


Diagoras: A common dictionary definition has it as ‘the state of being aware and responsive to one’s surroundings’. Can we agree on that?

William: I myself don't put too much importance upon dictionary definitions, especially of problems which haven't yet properly been solved. Can we agree to that? The problem of Consciousness which has not yet been solved, ought not yet be defined in any absolute manner.

I can agree that it is at least a part definition of what can be so far observed, but have to say also that this leads to the problem of observing activity which can only be described as "the state of being aware and responsive to one’s surroundings" in organisms which do not have brains.
Which of itself means that brains are not necessary in order for consciousness to be observed exhibiting such behavior, which serves to argue against brains being the reason Consciousness exists, as well as serves to support the argument that Consciousness uses things in which to express through, brains included.

Diagoras: It would be useful to nail down what exactly is being discussed, as I sense you’re a bit frustrated that both sides use terms differently.

William: Perhaps it is in how I am approaching the argument so far.
Always looking for ways in which to make the safest approach to landing on anyone's favored positions.
Sorting out 'terms and conditions' in order to proceed, is an interesting exercise, but believe me or not, I am not 'frustrated' in the least.
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.

Diagoras: You say ‘just as easily’ as if there were similar amounts and quality of evidence for consciousness emerging from non-brains.
That’s an unsupported statement.

William: What I am saying is that, there is no easy way in which to know either way...'just as easy' was used tongue in cheek.
Also, I am a huge contributor on this forum, of anything to do with the subject of Consciousness = GOD, and forget that newer members might not be overly aware of that.
There is nothing easy about the process of human evolution which has brought us to the place where we can invent machinery in order to help us understand better, what it is we are all experiencing. As a Theist (Christian Panentheist) I include the possibility that the Collective Consciousness of The Planet Entity (Earth Entity) has been at the helm the whole journey, prodding us along the whole way, while allowing us as much autonomy as possibly so that we don't think ourselves as mere automatons, or simply useful and discard-able slaves.

Diagoras: We may never solve the ‘how’ and the ‘why’ (and debating that would really be better off in the philosophy sub-forum) but the ‘what’, i.e. “consciousness can be observed, is seated in the brain and ceases at death� can be stated as true (and yes, with ‘reasonable confidence’), based on available scientific evidence.

William: I disagree, obviously, because ‘reasonable confidence’ is as much an act of faith as belief in the Metaphysical Universe. It is not a game-changer and therefore should not be argued as if it were.
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

Diagoras: My observation is, can’t we equally state:

“claiming there is an experience to be had after the death of the brain, relies heavily upon the belief that we are each our brains plus some metaphysical part.�

William: I do not agree that we are both. My argument is that we are just as likely (a) Metaphysical being(s) experiencing being human, so in that, we are not really human beings or the brains of human beings or the body parts of human beings. We are using those thing as part of the experience.
Also, as has been pointed out, there are theories which have been excluded from the theory presented in the OP.
One such theory is that of Simulated Universe.
My position does not alter in regard to that, because it includes the Simulated Universe theory.

The "Brain is me" theory is mundane in that it excludes other theories for the sake of making itself appear greater than it really is.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to post 26 by William]

An apology

I’ve mistakenly posted responses as if this topic was in the Science & Religion sub-forum. See my earlier response to RazorsEdge:

If we’re debating in a sub-forum specifically focussed on science

Clearly, we’re not in that sub-forum! That’s my error, so hopefully you’ll both see my responses in that fresh light.

I’ve seen some positions very different to my own (always useful, so thanks for sharing), but I’m not sure I now see a way forward for me in this debate that doesn’t ‘rely’ on science.

If similar questions are posed in ‘S&R’, I’ll gladly participate.

[Mithrae]

[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.

In humans... while alive. Describing a theory which he also supports, Koch says (emphasis mine):

• Tononi postulates that any complex and interconnected mechanism whose structure encodes a set of cause-and-effect relationships will have these properties—and so will have some level of consciousness. It will feel like something from the inside. But if, like the cerebellum, the mechanism lacks integration and complexity, it will not be aware of anything. As IIT states it, consciousness is intrinsic causal power associated with complex mechanisms such as the human brain.

At face value an advantage of that viewpoint is that it might leave room for the fact that even much simpler, brainless organisms - even bacteria! - demonstrate active, sensory investigation of and responsiveness to their environment which seems to suggest 'conscious' awareness.

But a further implication seems to be that if a sufficiently accurate imprint or copy of our brains were produced in some other substance, that copy too would be every bit as conscious as we are. So again, as in post #20, a sort of epiphenomenal form of mind is not ruled out, including the possibility of conscious existence after death of the body.

[Swami]

This isn’t to say that I don’t believe you’ve had the experiences you’ve mentioned. But personal anecdotes really do not hold much weight when considered as scientific evidence.

Anecdotes can become scientific evidence when enough people report the same experience. The experience I described earlier was personal but it's one that many have reported and that many more can experience for themselves. This is how NDEs came to be accepted by scientist. Perhaps it started out as a few accounts but then many came out, including children, reporting the same experience and now the NDE is accepted. The dispute now is not the experience but rather how we interpret it.

So now I have claimed that I've experienced a universal form of consciousness. Many others have experienced this. This experience can be induced, experienced by anyone, and repeated using a very reliable technique, that is meditation. I am more than justified not accepting the materialist view of consciousness.

[Mithrae]

Can you imagine even higher levels of consciousness than this?... I can. An even higher or fuller expression of consciousness reached through meditation... a consciousness that is as boundless as the Universe, one that is in and part of everything. I've experienced all of this.

So now I have claimed that I've experienced a universal form of consciousness.

You suggested that we can imagine a 'universal' consciousness... so how do you know that you didn't just imagine it? A self-induced experience, as you said; what reason is there to suppose it's connected to anything real?