Death Is Not Final - The Debate

[erdoch]

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.

 

To an extent I agree. We have to take it on faith and testimony that it somehow all works, even though we don't know how - and speculating on what seems currently unknowable could be detrimental if it leads to deprioritizing many more important matters in life or if one bases faith and testimony on the presence or absence of non-spiritual empirical understanding. 

 

On the other hand, I also believe in separating the question "how does it work?" from "is it true?" and that seeking a better understanding of the "how" is an entirely legitimate quest. As I tried to convey in my opening post, I don't think it unlikely that at some point we'll be able to scientifically confirm the afterlife. And I do believe in studying the best books and in doing our best with what we currently have, both in terms of spiritual and scientific learning, in asking new questions, and seeking for better understanding. 

[WysteriaBlue]

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. 

 

The body not just the brain remembers...in the end, it is said that only the spiritual can heal these wounds and memories.

 

As the others have stated, books and websites are all right as long as they do not contain temple content, vulgarity or other objectionable content that we would not allow from our posters.  Carry on. - moderator

[mfbukowski]

To an extent I agree. We have to take it on faith and testimony that it somehow all works, even though we don't know how - and speculating on what seems currently unknowable could be detrimental if it leads to deprioritizing many more important matters in life or if one bases faith and testimony on the presence or absence of non-spiritual empirical understanding. 

 

On the other hand, I also believe in separating the question "how does it work?" from "is it true?" and that seeking a better understanding of the "how" is an entirely legitimate quest. As I tried to convey in my opening post, I don't think it unlikely that at some point we'll be able to scientifically confirm the afterlife. And I do believe in studying the best books and in doing our best with what we currently have, both in terms of spiritual and scientific learning, in asking new questions, and seeking for better understanding. 

I agree, I guess it is just a question of what becomes a waste of time for some may somehow be important to others even if no answer can come of it.  I don't mean that as a put-down and I should just probably shut up.  I have been working on this for 40 years myself and have the answers that work for me, and I really just should shut up and let others do the same. 

[mfbukowski]

The body not just the brain remembers...in the end, it is said that only the spiritual can heal these wounds and memories.

I think at some time we will see that all this relies somehow on what we would now call "electro-magnetic fields" which interact in ways far beyond our present understanding.

 

I have come to see humans as fields- in the way we influence each other, and interact on a socio-cultural basis as well as in some sense physically as well.

 

We see someone we are uncomfortable with, or on the other side, that we love, and it seems like that field just pops right out at us and communicates across the gap between us.

 

I remember standing in a crowd at a parade with my adult kids, waiting for my wife to return.  She was walking with a huge crowd nearly a full city block away, and I picked her out of the crowd, but my kids could not see her.  She also saw me, in a similar crowd, and we waved.  No one else could see her until she waved, but I saw her as soon as she turned the corner and came into view.

 

That is all explainable on many levels- yes I am conditioned to her walk and the way she moves, her hair and all that.  But it was a "reaching out" sensation where we were in instant communication- as if a part of me was reaching out to a part of her, almost as if we shared the same nervous system.  I have had other experiences where I knew when others were in distress and needed to be called, or some other action needed to be taken.

 

And yes, I have had some training in neuropsychology- I took several classes in physiological psychology in college- it was my minor for my BA.

 

I believe that is a "real" phenomenon, but I have no clue how to explain it. 

 

The philosopher Thomas Nagel has written extensively on this problem, and he is an atheist.

But he said this:

 

"If physicalism is to be defended, the phenomenological features must themselves be given a physical account. But when we examine their subjective character it seems that such a result is impossible. The reason is that every subjective phenomenon is essentially connected with a single point of view, and it seems inevitable that an objective, physical theory will abandon that point of view." -

 

Thomas Nagel, What Is It Like To Be a Bat?

 

Descriptions of human experience cannot be contained within a physical explanation- THAT is what he is saying.  Saying "I love you" is not a statement about hormones or brain activity, it is about human experience.

 

Statements about human experience can never be made logically equivalent to statements about chemical activity.  Statements about human experience are first-person statements- they are reports of personal subjective experience.

 

Statements about chemicals are third person statements- they are statements about objective data which can in principle be verified by anyone.

 

No one can ever see anything from our individual subjective perspectives- the contents of our experiences are conditioned by every event in our lives, and no one has the same events and experiences.

 

"I love you" can never in principle be reduced to a statement about electro-chemical interactions, so those two statements can never be made equivalent.

 

So something is always lost in the physical description- lost in the translation, if you will.  The two sets of statements have nothing to do with each other, it is like talking about, as I sometimes say, impressionist painting and baseball.   Statements about baseball have nothing to do with impressionist painting. 

 

Statements about electrochemical activity have nothing to do with what it is like to be human.

 

So for me, there is nothing to be debated.  Thinking that there is, is a logical confusion.

 

Edited May 9, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

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.

Please explain your logic. I don't see how you are getting the idea that our spirit/mind/conscious isn't aware of what we don't remember while in our body.

[Tiki]

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.

Memory?

What of people blind since birth who see things during a NDE? They imagine things from memory?

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5HbtoX3Q5OI

[thesometimesaint]

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.

 

The finest matter bigger than an electron that we know of is a Quark. Is a Quark spirit matter? I don't know. But it should be interesting to find out.

 

PS; Thought you might like this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfsAuzmx-N4

Edited May 10, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Nofear]

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

 

That is a tricky thing. If spirit matter interacted easily with physical matter, we would have seen its influences readily (even though we may not have the theory to understand where the measurements were coming from). But at the same time it does need some way of being around. For example, we typically assume our spirit bodies are colocal with our physical bodies. Brigham Young taught the spirit world was "here". How does the spirit world maintain the exact same orbit as our physical planet if spirit matter only very weakly interacts with physical matter. How does it maintain that unless it does interact easily? That is quite a conundrum. At present I can only tell you what models don't work (e.g. neutrinos and several I've come up with myself).

 

I am partly of the mind that we simply lack the perspective to even begin to ask the right questions -- that the universe is much more rich and diverse than that which is presented to us in our mortal probabation. As a physicist, I find this a rather unsatisfactory and even unsettling position. Yet it is the conceit/pitfall of materialists/physicalists (which I am) to assume that we have observed all that there is and there can be no more.To paraphrase 2 Nephi 29:3

And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A physics! A physics! We have got a physics, and there cannot be any more physics.

 

The danger of admitting that is so very many would commit the inverse error (and some on this board in actuality do commit the error) -- to reject physics just because we know there is more. But that's about as foolish as Mormons rejecting the Bible because we have the Book of Mormon. Our physics/Bible is correct(ish) -- as long as interpreted/translated correctly.

[Nofear]

The finest matter bigger than an electron that we know of is a Quark. Is a Quark spirit matter? I don't know. But it should be interesting to find out.

We can't use the quark alone to assemble as complex and diverse structures such a spirit body nose or spirit body beard. Plus, if it spirit matter were quarks, there would be a very measurable difference in mass upon death and subsequent departure of the spirit body. /sorry

[Gray]

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

 

Agreed, but I think NDE stories are problematic as evidence for an afterlife 

[Gray]

Please explain your logic. I don't see how you are getting the idea that our spirit/mind/conscious isn't aware of what we don't remember while in our body.

 

Per LDS doctrine, there is a veil of forgetfulness that keeps us from remembering our previous life with God. It seems that this should apply to NDE experiences as well.

 

As far as what we're able to remember, memory is a chemical process - something that happens while our brains are dead would not be chemically encoded into our memories. 

[mfbukowski]

Per LDS doctrine, there is a veil of forgetfulness that keeps us from remembering our previous life with God. It seems that this should apply to NDE experiences as well.

 

As far as what we're able to remember, memory is a chemical process - something that happens while our brains are dead would not be chemically encoded into our memories. 

You are confusing science with religion and looking for a truth which includes both, and you will not find it.

Edited May 12, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Per LDS doctrine, there is a veil of forgetfulness that keeps us from remembering our previous life with God. It seems that this should apply to NDE experiences as well.

 

As far as what we're able to remember, memory is a chemical process - something that happens while our brains are dead would not be chemically encoded into our memories. 

Per LDS doctrine we remember our lives after death.

 

Take your pick - science or doctrine.

[Gray]

You are confusing science with religion and looking for a truth which includes both, and you will not find it.

 

We're talking about brain states, which is squarely in the realm of science. The afterlife is squarely in the realm of religion. 

[Gray]

Per LDS doctrine we remember our lives after death.

 

Take your pick - science or doctrine.

 

But NDEs are experiences that living people remember after being briefly dead, so I don't think your example is applicable. The purpose of the veil seems to be to obscure knowledge of God, and instead make people rely on faith. 

 

If NDEs are authentic, then they're a kind of loophole in the idea of the veil. 

Edited May 12, 2014 by Gray

[thesometimesaint]

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?

 

God.

[WysteriaBlue]

I think at some time we will see that all this relies somehow on what we would now call "electro-magnetic fields" which interact in ways far beyond our present understanding.

 

I have come to see humans as fields- in the way we influence each other, and interact on a socio-cultural basis as well as in some sense physically as well.

 

--------

 

Statements about electrochemical activity have nothing to do with what it is like to be human.

 

So for me, there is nothing to be debated.  Thinking that there is, is a logical confusion.

 

 

I agree with much of what you said....

 

At some point trying to put the physical nature of the Spirit into physiological or electrochemical "boundaries" or definitives is not possible.  Spiritus, inspiration, feelings, or personal experiences are not meant to be that logical or broken down to some elemental atomic form.

 

It makes me think about when I had my first baby.  I know it is childish or simple in relation to your scientific discussions...but I asked the question to my doctor, (and many others since then), 'what makes my baby's heart beat for the very first beat inside of me?'

He started to reply about electro-chemical-physiological answers, but when I pushed about why and why at that exact moment in time...he finally said, "no one knows.  And any doctor that tells you differently is lying.  We cannot explain it."

 

So in terms of the nature of the Spirit....I don't think anyone will ever convince the world that they have a difinitive answer as to 'how' it works behind the veil or not.  (Some LDS teachings also speak of hymen and womb as veils)

For now we can only feel and experience his manifestations...  and maybe that is enough.  As one who is intrinsically part of the Godhood, our little insignificant reference point may not be able to fathom the answers...  personally, sometimes I'd just rather be awed.

 

-WB

[mfbukowski]

We're talking about brain states, which is squarely in the realm of science. The afterlife is squarely in the realm of religion.

Per LDS doctrine, there is a veil of forgetfulness that keeps us from remembering our previous life with God. It seems that this should apply to NDE experiences as well.

As far as what we're able to remember, memory is a chemical process - something that happens while our brains are dead would not be chemically encoded into our memories.

Sure sounds like you are mixing them to me.

[mfbukowski]

If NDEs are authentic, then they're a kind of loophole in the idea of the veil.

I think we see a lot of such loopholes all the time in our culture. "Saturday's Warrior" was a play based on the idea that we could make covenants with people on the pre earth life and then have some idea of familiarity when we find them here.

There is a long history in mysticism of spiritual knowledge being a kind of recollection of what we knew before we came to earth. But it still requires faith to believe that NDE's are "authentic".

Of course for me, there is no distinction between an "authentic" spiritual experience and anything else, so the word becomes irrelevant. An experience is an experience and that's all we can ever know or say about it.

So for me actually, what are called "spiritual experiences" are just as "authentic" as looking at my computer screen and typing these words. There is no way to differentiate one from another.

[mfbukowski]

I agree with much of what you said....

 

At some point trying to put the physical nature of the Spirit into physiological or electrochemical "boundaries" or definitives is not possible.  Spiritus, inspiration, feelings, or personal experiences are not meant to be that logical or broken down to some elemental atomic form.

 

It makes me think about when I had my first baby.  I know it is childish or simple in relation to your scientific discussions...but I asked the question to my doctor, (and many others since then), 'what makes my baby's heart beat for the very first beat inside of me?'

He started to reply about electro-chemical-physiological answers, but when I pushed about why and why at that exact moment in time...he finally said, "no one knows.  And any doctor that tells you differently is lying.  We cannot explain it."

 

So in terms of the nature of the Spirit....I don't think anyone will ever convince the world that they have a difinitive answer as to 'how' it works behind the veil or not.  (Some LDS teachings also speak of hymen and womb as veils)

For now we can only feel and experience his manifestations...  and maybe that is enough.  As one who is intrinsically part of the Godhood, our little insignificant reference point may not be able to fathom the answers...  personally, sometimes I'd just rather be awed.

 

-WB

Great post- agree- thanks!

[Gray]

Sure sounds like you are mixing them to me.

 

On the contrary, I'm saying that they're very much separate. Due to several factors, I don't think NDE stories are good evidence for the afterlife, any more than a feeling of deja vu is good evidence for reincarnation. That doesn't speak to whether or not the soul is immortal - that's not something that can be demonstrated or disproved. 

[Gray]

I think we see a lot of such loopholes all the time in our culture. "Saturday's Warrior" was a play based on the idea that we could make covenants with people on the pre earth life and then have some idea of familiarity when we find them here.

There is a long history in mysticism of spiritual knowledge being a kind of recollection of what we knew before we came to earth. But it still requires faith to believe that NDE's are "authentic".

Of course for me, there is no distinction between an "authentic" spiritual experience and anything else, so the word becomes irrelevant. An experience is an experience and that's all we can ever know or say about it.

So for me actually, what are called "spiritual experiences" are just as "authentic" as looking at my computer screen and typing these words. There is no way to differentiate one from another.

 

I'm not really talking about spiritual experiences. I agree it makes no sense trying to authenticate them. They are as subjective as appreciation for beauty. But if the subject is a literal visitation to a spiritual realm, then I think we can talk about categories of evidence. 

[mfbukowski]

I'm not really talking about spiritual experiences. I agree it makes no sense trying to authenticate them. They are as subjective as appreciation for beauty. But if the subject is a literal visitation to a spiritual realm, then I think we can talk about categories of evidence.

Huh?

I see no difference whatsoever. What is the difference?

I might have a spiritual experience where God shows me the kingdoms of the earth. That doesn't mean I was "really there". I would have no more doubt that God showed me that than if someone showed me a picture of Antarctica (where I have never been) and told me it was a picture of a "real" place.

Edited May 12, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Gray]

Huh?

I see no difference whatsoever. What is the difference?

I might have a spiritual experience where God shows me the kingdoms of the earth. That doesn't mean I was "really there". I would have no more doubt that God showed me that than if someone showed me a picture of Antarctica (where I have never been) and told me it was a picture of a "real" place.

 

People who promote NDEs as evidence of a spiritual afterlife I think are taking a far more literal view of the experience, as if they've traveled to Australia and brought back souvenirs to prove they were really there. They're not thinking in terms of vision or revelation. 

Edited May 12, 2014 by Gray

[mfbukowski]

People who promote NDEs as evidence of a spiritual afterlife I think are taking a far more literal view of the experience, as if they've traveled to Australia and brought back souvenirs to prove they were really there. They're not thinking in terms of vision or revelation. 

My point is the epistemological problem created by using ANY experience as "evidence" of any "reality" outside the experience itself.

 

All there is, is human experience, and reports of human experience.

 

Good old Rorty, p 5 Contingency Irony and Solidarity

 

We need to make a distinction between the claim that the world is out there and the claim that the truth is out there.  To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states.  To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages and that human languages are human creations.

Truth cannot be out there - cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot.

In these situations there is no difference between knowing what is "out there" and what is not, so it is pointless to try to make the distinction.

 

Human mental states are the only reality humans can know, because knowledge itself is a mental state, poorly expressed in language.