Death Is Not Final - The Debate

[erdoch]

Anyone here heard about the Intelligence Squared debates? Usually this is a forum discussing questions of a political nature but this evening there was a debate on the motion "Death is not final". Debating for the position was Raymond Moody, who coined the term "near death experience", and Eben Alexander, neurosurgeon and author of "Proof of heaven". Debating against the position was Sean Carroll, physicist and writer, and Steven Novella, neurologist at Yale University School of Medicine and co-founder of the New England Skeptical Society. 

 

A link to the full hour and a half or so long debate should be available here within the next 24 hours. It was pretty interesting. 

 

What I came away from the debate was this: the side arguing against an after-life argued their case better, Raymond Moody sometimes going off on philosophical tangents that in the end contributed very little to the discussion. Whereas Eben pointed to the "hard problem" of consciousness (we do not understand how consciousness works), Novella argued that while we understand comparatively little about how consciousness is brought about by the brain we know enough to say that it is brought about by the brain (backed up by experiences where brain damage results in changed personality, electromagnetic stimulation results in people experiencing out-of-body perception, etc.). 

 

 

As someone who believes very strongly in the afterlife I want to explore a few thoughts here:

 

(1) Science has come to explain more and more about ourselves than ever before: DNA and the science of the brain being two prime examples. Anyone who wants to postulate a scientific hypothesis about the existence of the spirit/soul or an afterlife has to work within the framework of modern science with its wealth of data that already explains so much about ourselves without postulating the existence of the soul. It's hard to not feel that science has at least narrowed down the space in which we might postulate the idea of a soul.

 

(2) Seeing that science seems to have narrowed down the playing field, can we do any better than a "God-of-the-gaps" argument for the existence of the soul? Are there any decent theories out there about how the soul might interact with the body and the brain? 

 

(3) While not easily conducive to empirical scientific investigation, I do view the wealth of documented near-death experiences, after-death experiences (and as Moody mentioned, shared death experiences) as evidence that there is an after-life, even if it isn't a scientific kind of evidence. Skeptics would counter that this is anecdotal and that it can be explained by reference to the brain and psychology. I don't think that stance can be empirically "disproved" - but I also see a lot of value in a case study approach towards spiritual experiences and understanding them on their own terms. Maybe I'm biased by my own faith and testimony, but I do see the wealth of documented spiritual experiences as evidence, or at least a strong hint, that a spiritual world does exist. 

 

(4) My own understanding of neuroscience and applicable fields is limited. While I understand the argument that (paraphrasing one of the debaters against an afterlife) everything we've learned so far only confirms the materialist standpoint... I still think there's plenty of room left to deal with - plenty of stuff we're ignorant about. With 95% of the universe made up of of little-understood dark matter and dark energy - and serious scientific hypotheses being discussed about other dimensions and a multiverse - I think a lot of humility is needed about just how much we know and just how strong conclusions we can draw. 

 

(5) From modern revelation we know that "spirit is matter" (which to me means it "exists" and is "detectable" rather than entirely separate and created out of nothing). So it should be clear that, at least theoretically, science should be able to prove the existence of the spirit at some point - whether that be in the next ten years or only after millenia of scientific progress. With the EU and the Obama administration funding new research into mapping out the neural pathways of the brain, our understanding of the brain is going to be significantly enhanced in the next several decades. Is it imprudent to expect that *at some point* in the next century we'll have evidence of consciousness working outside the brain? Or at least be able to form some workable hypotheses about the spirit? 

 

Any comments about these points or about the debate (if you watch it) are appreciated. 

[theplains]

Any comments about these points or about the debate (if you watch it) are appreciated. 

 

Scientists cannot prove a lot of things, so they too must rely on faith of some kind.  They 

may even refer to it as 'blind trust'.

 

Thanks,

Jim

[strappinglad]

If spirit is matter , then it has mass. Unless it is like an electron which probably has mass, except when it doesn't.

What convinces me of the reality of an NDE are those which have empirical data on the patient like no EEG and no heart beat, hence dead, warm and dead , and for several minutes. If they are dreaming then there would be an EEG signal. Any experiment on the forcing of an ' out-of-body ' experience also shows that the person still has an EEG, he is not certifiably dead.

Many skeptics are skeptical about everything except their own superior knowledge of that which they have not experienced.

[thesometimesaint]

Our bodies including our brains, arms, legs, etc., etc., etc., all decay to dust once we die. But something, not yet accounted for in science, is the essential us.

Edited May 8, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Gray]

If spirit is matter , then it has mass. Unless it is like an electron which probably has mass, except when it doesn't.

What convinces me of the reality of an NDE are those which have empirical data on the patient like no EEG and no heart beat, hence dead, warm and dead , and for several minutes. If they are dreaming then there would be an EEG signal. Any experiment on the forcing of an ' out-of-body ' experience also shows that the person still has an EEG, he is not certifiably dead.

Many skeptics are skeptical about everything except their own superior knowledge of that which they have not experienced.

 

The problem with that is it relies on the assumption that the brain is accurately tracking time during the experience. The actual experience might not be happening during moments when there is no EEG signal.

 

Another problem: memory is created chemically and stored in the brain. If people are really leaving their bodies at death, we would expect there to be no memory of it stored in the brain anyway. So NDEs may be real, but the anecdotal evidence is likely not indicative of authentic NDEs. A true NDE would not be remembered. 

Edited May 8, 2014 by Gray

[Calm]

 A true NDE would not be remembered. 

Unless there was some way for the spirit to encode memory of past events…for example, if one assumes that people can recall life before birth, accurate descriptions of what happened in the past could be a result of the spirit viewing what was happening and then carrying that memory which was then transferred to the body…or perhaps there are spiritual memories that are encoded in a spiritual 'brain' and not in the physical one.

 

I am not sure one would be able to prove that all memories are chemically stored, that seems to be something that must be assumed at this point.

[erdoch]

For anyone interested the debate can now be watched online here. 

 

Scientists cannot prove a lot of things, so they too must rely on faith of some kind.  They 

may even refer to it as 'blind trust'.

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

True that we all work with faith of some kind. We all have our prejudices and assumptions. Separated by a veil and with no scientific confirmation of the spirit world, though, it seems rational enough to take the side against an afterlife. So far, the only way to confirm the existence of spiritual things is to exercise faith and experience the spiritual for ourselves. Which is probably best for us anyways. On the other hand, spirit being matter, I think we should expect *at some point* to have scientific verification. 

 

If spirit is matter , then it has mass. Unless it is like an electron which probably has mass, except when it doesn't.

What convinces me of the reality of an NDE are those which have empirical data on the patient like no EEG and no heart beat, hence dead, warm and dead , and for several minutes. If they are dreaming then there would be an EEG signal. Any experiment on the forcing of an ' out-of-body ' experience also shows that the person still has an EEG, he is not certifiably dead.

Many skeptics are skeptical about everything except their own superior knowledge of that which they have not experienced.

 

As someone pointed out to me on another thread, the AWARE Study is currently trying to confirm these experiences. The results should be forthcoming by the end of the year. 

 

The problem with that is it relies on the assumption that the brain is accurately tracking time during the experience. The actual experience might not be happening during moments when there is no EEG signal.

 

Another problem: memory is created chemically and stored in the brain. If people are really leaving their bodies at death, we would expect there to be no memory of it stored in the brain anyway. So NDEs may be real, but the anecdotal evidence is likely not indicative of authentic NDEs. A true NDE would not be remembered. 

 

Good point. Unless, as calmoriah points out, spiritual memories interact with physical memory. Or perhaps there's some kind of connection between spirit and body that hasn't been fully severed until the person has died completely... But this is definitely the argument used against NDE's, including in last night's debate. The idea being that, while Eben's cortex was shut down for a while during his coma, the NDE he experienced could have come about as his cortex came back up. Eben's response is that while he had his NDE he saw things he couldn't have if he was "gone." Others have had NDE's where they saw things out of body that they couldn't possibly have seen (in the operating room etc.) and the AWARE Study is trying to test for such claims more methodologically. 

Edited May 8, 2014 by erdoch

[bcuzbcuz]

A true NDE would not be remembered.

I have NDE's every day. It's not because I'm old, it's the human experience. Death, on the other hand, is something that a person doesn't get over.. It's final. And it isn't remembered.

[Nofear]

(5) From modern revelation we know that "spirit is matter" (which to me means it "exists" and is "detectable" rather than entirely separate and created out of nothing). So it should be clear that, at least theoretically, science should be able to prove the existence of the spirit at some point - whether that be in the next ten years or only after millenia of scientific progress. With the EU and the Obama administration funding new research into mapping out the neural pathways of the brain, our understanding of the brain is going to be significantly enhanced in the next several decades. Is it imprudent to expect that *at some point* in the next century we'll have evidence of consciousness working outside the brain? Or at least be able to form some workable hypotheses about the spirit?

 

I've said this several times on this board and say it again as it is particularly germane. Science can only observe that which a theory describes. For example, Newtonian mechanics cannot observe electric field or curved space. What Newtonian mechanics can observe is a deviation in the observables it does describe which are not accounted for by the theory -- anomalies.

 

Why is this relevant? We have no scientific model of spirit matter. Sure we can say that spirit matter has mass, but what would that mean? Is it the same kind of "mass" as physical matter*? Does it interact gravitationally with physical matter? Similar questions could be asked about electromagnetic interactions. Or we can ask if spirit matter has the analog of elements that physical matter does or is it a single type of particle**. Those questions can only be answered after we create a model. Some models will clearly be wrong without formal experimentation -- indeed all of the models I have managed to formulate in my mind are thus.

 

Anyway, I think it is still a very worthy question to try and formulate a model of how spirit matter is the same and different from physical matter. If you are so inclined/interested, I would participate with further discussion on the issue in a separate thread (so as to not distract from your other worthy questions) -- there is quite a bit to say on the matter (hehe pun).

 

 

* I here use "physical matter" to describe the matter which, as mortals, we are familiar with and is currently best described by the Standard Model of Particle Physics.

 

** I think one can argue persuasively that spirit matter must have a complexity similar to that possessed by physical matter.

[Nofear]

Unless there was some way for the spirit to encode memory of past events…for example, if one assumes that people can recall life before birth, accurate descriptions of what happened in the past could be a result of the spirit viewing what was happening and then carrying that memory which was then transferred to the body…or perhaps there are spiritual memories that are encoded in a spiritual 'brain' and not in the physical one.

 

I am not sure one would be able to prove that all memories are chemically stored, that seems to be something that must be assumed at this point.

 

Memory is one of those fun questions. In LDS theology we clearly carry memories of our life with us past a functioning physical body. Our physical brain influences our memories (indeed it is shown that the more we recall a particular memory the more we manipulate the memory -- usually making it less historically accurate). Is that true of our "spirit brain" as well?

 

Or at what level does memory redundancy occur? We could go anywhere from 1) no redundancy (all memory stored in the spirit brain and the physical brain simply stores "pointers" to the spirit brain) to 2) total redundancy (physical memory and spirit memory are distinct and separate though many events will be carried by both -- though adjusting one does not adjust the other). This is a tricky thing to test... but NDE's seem one of the best potential venues at the moment*.

 

 

* For example, can memory be generated during an NDE wherein there is no measurable brain activity?

[erdoch]

Why is this relevant? We have no scientific model of spirit matter. Sure we can say that spirit matter has mass, but what would that mean? Is it the same kind of "mass" as physical matter*? Does it interact gravitationally with physical matter? Similar questions could be asked about electromagnetic interactions. Or we can ask if spirit matter has the analog of elements that physical matter does or is it a single type of particle**. Those questions can only be answered after we create a model. Some models will clearly be wrong without formal experimentation -- indeed all of the models I have managed to formulate in my mind are thus.

 

Anyway, I think it is still a very worthy question to try and formulate a model of how spirit matter is the same and different from physical matter. If you are so inclined/interested, I would participate with further discussion on the issue in a separate thread (so as to not distract from your other worthy questions) -- there is quite a bit to say on the matter (hehe pun).

 

I would be very interested in your further thoughts on the subject. You're welcome to continue participation in this thread since these are exactly the type of questions I'm getting at.

 

Another thought: since spirit is matter it must also be said that matter is spirit. Perhaps the more we learn about "matter" the closer we'll come to be able to detect spiritual matter or form a model of spiritual matter. Maybe someday we'll learn that the fermions of the Standard Model are composed of even more fundamental particles that, once we know more about those, will lead us into discovering the spirit? Or is the better way to look at multidimensional theories? 

[Ahab]

Our bodies including our brains, arms, legs, etc., etc., etc., all decay to dust once we die. But something, not yet accounted for in science, is the essential us.

Yeah, which is the part scientists refer to as our conscious. The part that is gone (as far as scientists can detect) when we are...what we generally refer to as being...dead. But we (our spirit, or what they call our conscious) will simply have gone somewhere else at that point, even though scientists (some at least) are still puzzled about where it has gone. They can tell it's not there anymore, in our body but they don't know where it has gone. All they know, from what they can't see anymore, is that it just isn't there where it once was, and I think many won't be able to tell where it's gone until they also die and can see for themselves.

But then again, will they really know then, since what they will see is a person who appears the same as when the person was once alive? I have a feeling that some of them may still be trying to figure out where a person's conscious is even when they will be seeing a person's spirit, in person. Even if they could see a persons' spirit with a very fine microscope they would see that it's all matter. What they will want to see is what they will already be seeing without realizing what they are seeing. They will just need the Aha! moment.

[Tacenda]

http://mormondiscussion.podbean.com/

 

Nancy Phippen Browne, author of "Help Thou Mine Unbelief", is on the most recent podcast.  DB and her discuss NDE's and getting a witness of the spirit.  And ways to build our faith.  Just thought I'd share this.  Great podcast!!  You may have to become a member to listen, but her book is on Amazon!     

[Ahab]

The problem with that is it relies on the assumption that the brain is accurately tracking time during the experience. The actual experience might not be happening during moments when there is no EEG signal.

Another problem: memory is created chemically and stored in the brain. If people are really leaving their bodies at death, we would expect there to be no memory of it stored in the brain anyway. So NDEs may be real, but the anecdotal evidence is likely not indicative of authentic NDEs. A true NDE would not be remembered.

Unless, as we LDS believe, that our intellect as well as our memories are eternally a part of our spirits. We see evidence of our intellect and our memories in our brains only when our spirits (aka our conscious) is active or alive in our brains, but we take all of that with us when we die and have gone somewhere else.

[Nofear]

I would be very interested in your further thoughts on the subject. You're welcome to continue participation in this thread since these are exactly the type of questions I'm getting at.

 

Another thought: since spirit is matter it must also be said that matter is spirit. Perhaps the more we learn about "matter" the closer we'll come to be able to detect spiritual matter or form a model of spiritual matter. Maybe someday we'll learn that the fermions of the Standard Model are composed of even more fundamental particles that, once we know more about those, will lead us into discovering the spirit? Or is the better way to look at multidimensional theories? 

 

I'm actually partial to a tripartite model: physical matter, spirit matter, and intelligent matter. All forms of matter and distinct. Many Mormons equate spirit matter and intelligent matter but for the time being and until a compelling model suggests otherwise, I think it better to separate the two.

 

There are those that suggest that certain portions of physical matter is spirit matter -- we don't just recognize them as such. For example, I've heard neutrinos being advocated before. Problem is that neutrinos, as we know of them, are utterly incapable of forming a stable, complex form such as our own personal spirit body. Other proposals similarly fail.

 

Your own suggestion, as I understand it, is that our physical matter is composed of more fundamental particles and those in turn may have assembled in a different path, as it were, to make spirit matter. Problem with that is our current physical model really doesn't like that approach (e.g. electrons, photons, neutrinos, etc. are indivisible). Second problem is approach. Suppose we have some set O and it can take path A or path B but we are unfamiliar with path B. We can either skip O and try to understand B directly or we can try to understand O and then from there understand B. The latter may be more aesthetic but the former, experimentally speaking, is much more pragmatic. Also has the advantage of working whether or not O exists.

 

Multidimensional theories... that's a whole can of worms. My spirit body is presumed to be spatially co-located with my physical body. But if in another dimension, what does that mean or what do we mean by another dimension? Also, for that matter my space-time coordinates are in no way yours (or anybody else's) space-time coordinates. Heck, my toes have a different set of coordinates than my head does. Space-time... /shudder... that's messy stuff. Yet, to understand spirit matter I strongly suspect we'll have to get a stronger handle on it. For the time being, I prefer to answer the question of interaction capabilities first. But that's just me.

[Gray]

Unless, as we LDS believe, that our intellect as well as our memories are eternally a part of our spirits. We see evidence of our intellect and our memories in our brains only when our spirits (aka our conscious) is active or alive in our brains, but we take all of that with us when we die and have gone somewhere else.

 

Actually, the LDS doctrine of the veil would also seem to preclude any living memory of authentic out of body experiences, which actually goes right along with how memory works in the brain. 

Edited May 9, 2014 by Gray

[WysteriaBlue]

Mr. Erdoch et al,

 

I don't know if this is allowed by the moderators, but there is a book by George Valliant called Spiritual Evolution: A Scientific Defense of Faith_.  In his book he links the neurological, body, spirit, nde's, religion and theology and many other svhools of thought to defend the need for Faith/religion.  He doesn't always believe in very dogmatic religions including the LDS church, but as a scientist and long-term researcher of religion and other things in aging, he has a unique perspective.  I believe he is a professor at Harvard (?), and helped to design the famous long term studies on aging.  He wrote the summary of findings on the elderly.  He is considered quite brilliant.  

 

He talks about the most  primitive to the most evolved parts of the brain and body and how they work together to undrrstand aspects of religion, the future, and the afterlife.  It might be worth perusing if it is acceptable reading material for you.  I only hope my weak attempt at summarizing his work might show the relevance to the initial post.

 

If this is not allowed, please let me know how to delete it and I will right away...

 

-WB

 

[i have self reported post to moderators for review...]

Edited May 9, 2014 by WysteriaBlue

[mfbukowski]

Unless there was some way for the spirit to encode memory of past events…for example, if one assumes that people can recall life before birth, accurate descriptions of what happened in the past could be a result of the spirit viewing what was happening and then carrying that memory which was then transferred to the body…or perhaps there are spiritual memories that are encoded in a spiritual 'brain' and not in the physical one.

 

I am not sure one would be able to prove that all memories are chemically stored, that seems to be something that must be assumed at this point.

Suppose memories are "uploaded to the cloud" in some repository we can tap into later after our brains are dust?

 

There is so much we do not know about any of this that we take on faith anyway, I am not at all concerned about how God does it.

 

In my opinion even speculating on it is pretty pointless.

 

What we all need to remember is that the existence of the afterlife is non falsifiable, because we know so little, and is to be accepted on faith anyway.

[mfbukowski]

Mr. Erdoch et al,

 

I don't know if this is allowed by the moderators, but there is a book by George Valliant called Spiritual Evolution: A Scientific Defense of Faith_.  In his book he links the neurological, body, spirit, nde's, religion and theology and many other svhools of thought to defend the need for Faith/religion.  He doesn't always believe in very dogmatic religions including the LDS church, but as a scientist and long-term researcher of religion and other things in aging, he has a unique perspective.  I believe he is a professor at Harvard (?), and helped to design the famous long term studies on aging.  He wrote the summary of findings on the elderly.  He is considered quite brilliant.  

 

He talks about the most  primitive to the most evolved parts of the brain and body and how they work together to undrrstand aspects of religion, the future, and the afterlife.  It might be worth perusing if it is acceptable reading material for you.  I only hope my weak attempt at summarizing his work might show the relevance to the initial post.

 

If this is not allowed, please let me know how to delete it and I will right away...

 

-WB

 

[i have self reported post to moderators for review...]

No need to be paranoid about anything here really, relax.

 

If it doesn't have temple content or make personal attacks it's probably fine.  People post all kinds of stuff here

[WysteriaBlue]

No need to be paranoid about anything here really, relax.

 

If it doesn't have temple content or make personal attacks it's probably fine.  People post all kinds of stuff here

 

Thanks....but there are some I REALLY don't want to offend.  I have no light sabers....  

[mfbukowski]

Actually, the LDS doctrine of the veil would also seem to preclude any living memory of authentic out of body experiences, which actually goes right along with how memory works in the brain. 

I don't think we have any clue about whether or not this is right and never will during our lifetimes

 

For me this becomes an unsolvable epistemological problem because we don't even have a methodology to investigate the question.  All we have are subjective reports.

 

It's like.asking if love is measurable

Edited May 9, 2014 by mfbukowski

[erdoch]

There are those that suggest that certain portions of physical matter is spirit matter -- we don't just recognize them as such. For example, I've heard neutrinos being advocated before. Problem is that neutrinos, as we know of them, are utterly incapable of forming a stable, complex form such as our own personal spirit body. Other proposals similarly fail.

 

Your own suggestion, as I understand it, is that our physical matter is composed of more fundamental particles and those in turn may have assembled in a different path, as it were, to make spirit matter. Problem with that is our current physical model really doesn't like that approach (e.g. electrons, photons, neutrinos, etc. are indivisible). Second problem is approach. Suppose we have some set O and it can take path A or path B but we are unfamiliar with path B. We can either skip O and try to understand B directly or we can try to understand O and then from there understand B. The latter may be more aesthetic but the former, experimentally speaking, is much more pragmatic. Also has the advantage of working whether or not O exists.

 

Multidimensional theories... that's a whole can of worms. My spirit body is presumed to be spatially co-located with my physical body. But if in another dimension, what does that mean or what do we mean by another dimension? Also, for that matter my space-time coordinates are in no way yours (or anybody else's) space-time coordinates. Heck, my toes have a different set of coordinates than my head does. Space-time... /shudder... that's messy stuff. Yet, to understand spirit matter I strongly suspect we'll have to get a stronger handle on it. For the time being, I prefer to answer the question of interaction capabilities first. But that's just me.

 

You understood my suggestion correctly. While in our current understanding electrons, photons, etc. seem indivisible, that may not be all there is too it. Possibilities like string theory may need to be explored further here. 

 

With particles like neutrinos incapable of forming a stable form, where do you propose we look for interaction between spirit matter and physical matter?

[Tacenda]

No need to be paranoid about anything here really, relax.

If it doesn't have temple content or make personal attacks it's probably fine. People post all kinds of stuff here

Was just gonna say the same thing. Edited May 9, 2014 by Tacenda

[mfbukowski]

Thanks....but there are some I REALLY don't want to offend.  I have no light sabers....  

Everybody doesn't like something.....

 

My philosophy is to offend everyone equally.  But don't try this at home.  

[erdoch]

Mr. Erdoch et al,

 

I don't know if this is allowed by the moderators, but there is a book by George Valliant called Spiritual Evolution: A Scientific Defense of Faith_.  In his book he links the neurological, body, spirit, nde's, religion and theology and many other svhools of thought to defend the need for Faith/religion.  He doesn't always believe in very dogmatic religions including the LDS church, but as a scientist and long-term researcher of religion and other things in aging, he has a unique perspective.  I believe he is a professor at Harvard (?), and helped to design the famous long term studies on aging.  He wrote the summary of findings on the elderly.  He is considered quite brilliant.  

 

He talks about the most  primitive to the most evolved parts of the brain and body and how they work together to undrrstand aspects of religion, the future, and the afterlife.  It might be worth perusing if it is acceptable reading material for you.  I only hope my weak attempt at summarizing his work might show the relevance to the initial post.

 

If this is not allowed, please let me know how to delete it and I will right away...

 

I second mfbukowski that you don't need to worry about your post.  

 

Thanks for the book recommendation. Looks interesting. I definitely think studying the emotional or even spiritual aspects of ourselves as related to the brain is important in better seeking to understand the interaction between physical and spiritual matter.