A chat with ChatGPT about the possibility of an Afterlife

There's a new AI chatbot called ChatGPT that seems to be vastly superior in its responses to any other chatbot I have attempted to converse with. The following is my 2nd ever conversation with ChatGPT. I will make some comments at the end. I will add a little formatting to make it more clear. I have also slightly edited one sentence of mine to aid clarity.

Ian
How likely do you think it is that there is an afterlife?

ChatGPT
As a machine learning model, I don't have personal beliefs or opinions. The concept of an afterlife is a matter of faith and not something that can be proven or disproven by scientific means. Different people have different beliefs and opinions on the subject.

Ian
What reasons can be given both for and against an afterlife?

ChatGPT
There are several arguments that can be made for and against the existence of an afterlife.

Arguments for the existence of an afterlife often include religious or spiritual beliefs, near-death experiences, and the concept of consciousness being separate from the physical body. Some people believe that the soul or spirit continues to exist after death, and that there is a realm or plane of existence where the soul goes.

Arguments against the existence of an afterlife include scientific evidence that the brain and consciousness are closely tied to physical processes, and the lack of concrete evidence for an afterlife. Some people argue that death is simply the end of consciousness and that there is no afterlife. Others suggest that the idea of an afterlife is simply a human construct, created to help people cope with the fear of death.

Ultimately, whether or not an afterlife exists is a matter of personal belief and faith, and there is no scientific proof one way or the other.

Ian
How do such brain/consciousness correlations provide evidence that there is no afterlife?

ChatGPT
The correlation between brain activity and consciousness suggests that consciousness is a product of the physical brain and its functioning. This is the basis of the argument that consciousness is not separate from the physical body and that there is no soul or spirit that can continue to exist after death.

Research in neuroscience has shown that specific areas of the brain are associated with different cognitive functions, such as memory, emotion, and perception. Damage to these areas can lead to corresponding deficits in cognitive function. This correlation between brain activity and cognitive function is seen as evidence that the brain is the source of consciousness.

Additionally, the study of near-death experiences, which are often cited as evidence for the existence of an afterlife, have been explained by medical and neuroscientific explanations, such as the release of certain chemicals in the brain during life-threatening events, or the effects of oxygen deprivation on the brain.

It's important to note that this is an ongoing discussion and many neuroscientists and philosophers are still researching on the relationship between brain, consciousness and the afterlife. There is no certain conclusion yet, and it is still a matter of debate.

Ian
How do correlations between brain activity and consciousness suggest that consciousness is a product of the physical brain and its functioning? Why do these correlations suggest a causal link from brains to consciousness? Why is it not equally (if not more) possible that brains merely affect consciousness rather than producing it?

Incidentally, near-death experiences have not been explained. For one thing, such "explanations" assume upfront that the brain produces consciousness and that this hypothesis is wholly unproblematic. This is in spite of the "hard problem" of consciousness. For another thing, such explanations are purely speculative. And for yet a third thing, they do not explain anything like the full range of phenomena and feelings associated with near-death experiences, least of all the other anomalous phenomena that people experience close to death.

ChatGPT

The correlation between brain activity and consciousness is seen as evidence for a causal link from the brain to consciousness, because when specific areas of the brain are damaged, there are corresponding deficits in cognitive function. This suggests that the brain is the source of consciousness, rather than the brain simply affecting consciousness.

It's important to note that this is an ongoing discussion in the field of philosophy of mind and neuroscience, and there is no consensus on the relationship between brain and consciousness. Some theories propose that consciousness is a product of the brain's information processing and that the brain creates a sort of "virtual reality" that we experience as consciousness. Other theories propose that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe, and that the brain is a sort of filter or receiver of consciousness.

Regarding near-death experiences, it's true that these experiences have not been fully explained by neuroscience and that there is ongoing research on the topic. The explanations that have been proposed are based on current understanding of brain function and are not meant to be definitive. It's also true that there are many aspects of near-death experiences that are yet to be understood and that some people experience anomalous phenomena. It is also important to note that many of the proposed explanations for near-death experiences are based on the assumption that consciousness is produced by the brain, and this is a subject of ongoing debate.

It's important to note that these are complex issues and there is ongoing research and debate in the field of neuroscience, philosophy, and consciousness studies. There is no definite answer yet and different people have different perspectives on this subject.

Ian
Is it the case that whenever X affects Y that this suggests that X creates Y rather than X merely affecting Y?

Near-death experiences don't have any explanation at all. Indeed, there is no explanation for any consciousness at all. And if any such alleged explanations of near-death experiences assume upfront that brains create consciousness, then this is a form of question-begging.

[a long pause before it responds!]

ChatGPT
No, it is not the case that whenever X affects Y, this suggests that X creates Y rather than X merely affecting Y. The relationship between cause and effect is complex and can be difficult to determine. It is possible for X to affect Y without X being the direct cause of Y, or for there to be multiple causes for a single effect.

You are correct that there is currently no widely accepted explanation for the phenomenon of consciousness and the relationship between brain activity and consciousness is still a subject of ongoing research and debate. Theories such as the idea that the brain creates a "virtual reality" that we experience as consciousness or the idea that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe are still being explored. It's also correct that some proposed explanations for near-death experiences assume that consciousness is produced by the brain, which is a subject of ongoing debate and discussion, and this assumption can be seen as a form of question-begging.

Ian
So is it possible that the mind-brain correlations can be explained by the brain merely affecting the mind or consciousness rather than creating it?

ChatGPT
It is possible that the correlations between brain activity and consciousness can be explained by the brain merely affecting the mind or consciousness, rather than creating it. This is one of the perspectives that is being considered within the field of philosophy of mind and neuroscience.

One theory, called "panpsychism", postulates that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe, and that the brain is a sort of filter or receiver of consciousness. In this perspective, the brain would not create consciousness, but rather modulate it.

Another perspective is that consciousness is an emergent property of complex systems, like the brain. In this view, the brain doesn't create consciousness but it allows for it to emerge from the interactions between its neural networks.

It's also important to note that even if it is determined that the brain does not create consciousness, it would still play a crucial role in shaping and modulating it, and that the correlations between brain activity and consciousness would still be an important area of study in order to understand this relationship.

In any case, it's important to keep in mind that the relationship between brain and consciousness is an ongoing discussion and there is no definite answer yet.

Ian
Is it more likely that the mind-brain correlations are explained by the brain creating consciousness rather than the brain merely changing, modulating, and attenuating consciousness? If so, then why?

ChatGPT
The question of whether the mind-brain correlations are explained by the brain creating consciousness, rather than the brain merely changing, modulating, and attenuating consciousness, is a matter of ongoing debate and research in the field of philosophy of mind and neuroscience.

Some scientists and philosophers argue that the correlation between brain activity and cognitive function, as well as the effects of brain damage on cognitive function, suggest that the brain is the source of consciousness. They argue that the brain's information processing creates a sort of "virtual reality" that we experience as consciousness.

Others argue that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe, and that the brain is a sort of filter or receiver of consciousness, or that consciousness is an emergent property of complex systems, like the brain. In these perspectives, the brain does not create consciousness, but modulates it, or allows for it to emerge from the interactions between its neural networks.

It's important to note that there is no consensus on the relationship between brain and consciousness and different people have different perspectives on this subject. Some researchers and philosophers argue that the weight of evidence supports one view over the other, but ultimately, the question of whether the brain creates consciousness or modulates it remains an open question in the field.

Ian
What are these arguments that scientists and philosophers make which they regard as suggesting that the correlations between brain activity and cognitive function and the effects of brain damage on cognitive function, are best explained by supposing brains create consciousness?

ChatGPT
Scientists and philosophers who argue that the correlations between brain activity and cognitive function, as well as the effects of brain damage on cognitive function, suggest that the brain is the source of consciousness, typically cite several pieces of evidence in support of their position. Some of these arguments include:

1. Neural Correlates of Consciousness: The discovery of specific areas of the brain that are associated with different cognitive functions, such as memory, emotion, and perception, and the fact that damage to these areas can lead to corresponding deficits in cognitive function, is seen as evidence that the brain is the source of consciousness.

2. Near-death experiences: Some researchers point out that near-death experiences can be explained by medical and neuroscientific explanations, such as the release of certain chemicals in the brain during life-threatening events, or the effects of oxygen deprivation on the brain.

3. Brain plasticity: The brain's ability to adapt and change in response to different experiences is seen as evidence that consciousness arises from the brain's information processing.

4. Evolutionary explanations: Some researchers argue that consciousness is an adaptation that evolved to help organisms navigate and survive in their environment, and that the brain is the organ that enables this adaptation.

5. Artificial Intelligence and brain simulation: As technology advances and we are able to create more sophisticated artificial intelligence and brain simulations, the idea that consciousness could be artificially created or replicated is gaining ground.

It's important to note that these are ongoing debates and different scientists and philosophers have different perspectives on the relationship between brain and consciousness. Some may find these arguments more convincing than others, but ultimately, the question of whether the brain creates consciousness or modulates it remains an open question in the field.

Ian
Let's take these highlighted reasons one by one.

1. Neural Correlates of Consciousness: As I have already suggested, this is not a reason unless they explain why these correlations are best explained by brains creating consciousness rather than the brain merely changing, modulating, and attenuating consciousness.
   

2. Near-death experiences: You're repeating yourself (as well as with 1). I refer you to my previous response on near-death experiences. Also, even if no-one ever had a near-death experiences, this wouldn't entail the brain creates consciousness.
   

3. Brain plasticity: If the brain merely changes, modulates, and attenuates consciousness -- and it will presumably have this function in order to allow us to interface with this physical world -- then it is entirely unclear how such plasticity favours the hypothesis that brains create consciousness as opposed to the alternative.
   

4. Evolutionary explanations: This assumes that consciousness has causal powers over and above what the neural correlates of consciousness are doing. But mainstream academic opinion is overwhelmingly of the conviction that the physical world is closed. In fact, what these researchers are doing is assuming materialism UPFRONT, which is, of course, transparent question-begging. In other words, this cannot be an argument for the thesis that brains create consciousness as opposed to merely changing, modulating, and attenuating consciousness.

5. Artificial Intelligence and brain simulation: Computers merely follow instructions. Why would this connote consciousness?

OK, at this point it is clear that I'm not going to get an answer to why it is deemed more likely that brains create consciousness rather than merely changing, modulating, and attenuating it. So thanks for the conversation and goodbye.

ChatGPT
I apologize if my previous response was not clear enough. You are correct that the arguments I provided do not necessarily prove that the brain creates consciousness, rather than modulating it. The relationship between brain activity and consciousness is a complex and ongoing debate within the field of philosophy of mind and neuroscience, and there is no consensus on the subject.

It is important to note that the arguments I provided are the ones that some scientists and philosophers use to support their position that the brain creates consciousness. However, as you have pointed out, there are alternative explanations and perspectives that are also being considered.

In any case, I apologize if I did not provide a satisfactory answer to your question. My goal is to provide accurate and useful information, and I understand that this can be a complex and nuanced subject. If you have any other questions or concerns, please feel free to ask.

My thoughts on the conversation

When asking skeptics why they are so convinced that there is no afterlife, they almost invariably mention the fact that dysfunctional or damaged brains lead to impaired cognitive abilities and/or a change in personality, and hence the unavoidable conclusion is that brains, somehow or other, must give rise to minds or consciousness. Indeed, I have been reading skeptical sources on this subject for decades, and this is virtually the only reason given. 

But, as many of you who have read my other blog posts will be aware, I am not impressed by this argument. As I have pointed out in many places elsewhere, for example in The Mind-Brain Correlations, there is a close correlation between the acuity of our vision and the state of the lenses in the eyeglasses that we wear -- for example, if both the lenses were fogged up, our vision would be very much compromised. Yet, of course, we can all perfectly understand that such correlations do not entail the eyeglasses create our vision, they merely alter it.

(As an aside, I was wondering if I should have introduced this eyeglasses example to ChatGPT, but I suspected that if it has no understanding of anything whatsoever -- and I am personally convinced it doesn't -- then it wouldn't address the relevancy of this point and likely go off on a tangent talking about the opticians and 20:20 vision or whatever! And besides, it ought to be able to understand that x affecting y needn't entail that x produces y without the use of examples.)

Now, of course, skeptics might well claim that the mind-body relationship is utterly unlike that of eyeglasses and vision. But the crucial point here is that the correlations between brain states and mind states are insufficient in and of themselves to establish that brains create minds, or even that this is more likely than brains merely affecting our minds. Arguments need to be advanced in an attempt to show that in this instance, brains creating minds is a more reasonable interpretation of the correlations than the notion of mere alteration. As many of you will know, I come down on the side of alteration, which I won't go into here, but my reasons can be found under Part 5: Dysfunctional brains lead to impaired minds in my review of the soul fallacy.  

 

Unfortunately, despite for many years scouring the Internet and various books, I have never been able to find out why people are so convinced that such brain-mind correlations strongly suggests the former creates the latter*. That is bizarre in itself, but not something I wish to address here. The point here is that this is an absolutely crucial pivotal question. After all, the question of whether there is an afterlife or not is surely of intense interest to the vast majority of us. And this point, that damaged brains result in damaged minds hence there is no afterlife, is constantly wheeled out by skeptics as if it is the very last definitive word on the subject. It is a skeptical prism through which all the purported evidence for an afterlife are viewed. This has the effect of rendering such evidence as near-death experiences as being "extraordinary claims".

So this was why I was very keen to see what ChatGPT had to say on this issue and continually pressed it in the hope of eliciting an actual answer. I hasten to add that I didn't have any expectations that it would advance any such reasons. For where would it get those reasons from?  I have never been able to find any. Of course, if it really is conscious, is sentient, then it is a non-human consciousness, an alien consciousness so to speak, and would be expected to advance its own thoughts on why the mind-brain correlations are best interpreted as the brain creating the mind. But, as I fully expected, it didn't.  It answered like a politician does when asked a question; namely avoided answering it and simply continually repeated the point about the mind being impacted by the brain.

What do I think of ChatGPT?

So what do I think of ChatGPT? I think it is absolutely incredible, extraordinarily impressive. But I do not think it is conscious. I do not think it is doing anything miraculous. If it were providing its own thoughts, it wouldn't parallel the mainstream academic opinion that is already out there. It's more like a glorified encyclopedia that is trawling the net and other sources, and regurgitating information out there even though it is often paraphrasing that information.

Frequently, that regurgitated information is irrelevant. For example, I ask in my penultimate comment what are the scientists and philosophers arguments that they believe demonstrate that the effects of brain damage on cognitive function are best explained by supposing brains create consciousness. In context, I was clearing asking why they considered that the mind- brain correlations are best explained by the brains create consciousness hypothesis rather than the brains merely affecting consciousness hypothesis. But then ChatGPT proceeded to give me a bulleted list of arguments for naturalism that can be easily found on the web and elsewhere, and which do not address my question (I responded anyway, but at that point I gave up on getting an answer).  

 

More generally, there's a lot of extraneous information ChatGPT is providing (and, incidentally, not all of it correct) that is tangential to the question I was asking it.  And a great deal of repetition. If I were conversing with a person, he might say in an exasperated tone, "I've given you my reasons for why we should suppose the brain produces consciousness, why do you keep repeating the question?"  Then I might point out that he's already conceded that the fact that changes in X precipitate changes in Y certain't needn't imply that X creates Y.  And maybe the conversation might develop from that, and even become a meaningful exchange.  But ChatGPT comes across as more resembling an intellectual poseur similar to those endemic on the net, who doesn't really grasp what I'm saying, and simply regurgitates lots of tangential information he's absorbed from other sources so as to give a favourable impression to onlookers. 

Incidentally, I said at the beginning that this was my second conversation with ChatGPT.  For those interested in my first conversation, I put it on my other blog.  

 

 

 

*Of course, I get the feeling. If a beloved relative is suffering from Alzheimer's, then it seems that that person is no longer there, has irrevocably gone, has ceased to exist. But this is a feeling, not an argument. If someone were to wear eyeglasses the entirety of her life, and her vision slowly became poorer and poorer as the lenses became dirtier and dirtier, she might feel that she's slowly becoming blind and nothing can reverse that process. And yet, her vision becomes vastly better on taking the eyeglasses off. And, in fact, with a phenomenon labelled terminal lucidity (sometimes called paradoxical lucidity), which occurs close to death, there is a brief return of mental clarity that might possibly be explained by a soul or self disengaging from one's body and hence no longer having one's consciousness modulated and changed (deleteriously in the case of Alzheimer's) by one's brain.

Is breakfast the most important meal of the day?

I frequently come across the claim that it is very important to eat a breakfast since skipping breakfast is associated with a high prevalence of obesity and being overweight.

I confess, I never eat breakfasts and have scarcely done so my entire life. I simply do not feel hungry immediately after getting up. It takes about 3 or 4 hours after getting up before I start to feel hungry.

It seems peculiar to me that for those similar to me and are averse to eating food in the morning, that they will actually lose weight or stay slim by forcing themselves to eat food, which is quite the opposite to what one might expect. Further, doesn't the body generally tend to regulate its own weight by eliciting hunger pangs when you need food? 

But what about this research? Well, at most it establishes that those who are overweight have a greater propensity to skip breakfasts. Similar to seemingly most epidemiological research claiming this, that and the other, it fails to establish a causal relationship. When ice cream sales go up so do cases of sunburn. But no-one would dream of saying that eating ice cream causes sunburn. And most people die in bed, but no-one would dream of claiming that beds are therefore dangerous.

So before concluding that one thing causes another, we need at least some possible plausible causal mechanism, and then we need to show that it is this causal mechanism that is behind the correlated pattern that we see. In addition, for the specific case of whether eating breakfasts is always wise, there needs to be a study on those who are overweight and averse to eating breakfasts, to start eating breakfasts and to see whether these people end up losing weight.

Lacking such a plausible causal mechanism, there will always be other possible explanations for such patterns. In the specific case of slimmer people regularly eating breakfasts, very possibly there is a link between eating breakfast and people adhering to societal norms and being concerned about their well-being and health. These people will have a propensity as a whole to avoid extreme, or what is generally considered to be unwise behaviour e.g. they don't eat loads of junk food, they tend to eat lots of fruit and vegetables, and they tend to eat regular meals, including breakfasts. This then might explain why they aren't fat. In other words it has nothing to do with eating breakfast per se. Rather it is because they avoid junk food and indulge less in the risky behaviour that might have a deleterious effect on their health.