Ralph Lewis's Arguments against an Afterlife

I read an article by Ralph Lewis M.D entitled:

Is There Life After Death? The Mind-Body Problem

He attacks any possibility of an afterlife. He says:

Mind-brain dualism is the view that brain and mind are derived from entirely different kinds of things — physical stuff and mind-stuff. Dualism assumes that both kinds of stuff exist in the universe and that science has simply not yet detected and discovered the mind-stuff. Dualism feels intuitively correct to most people, as it fits with our subjective experience. But it is completely contradicted by science.

Some clarity is in order here. All forms of dualism hold that consciousness is non-physical; that is, consciousness lacks any physical properties. This is regardless of whether it is somehow produced by the brain or not. Thus, dualists hold that consciousness has no mass, charge, location, or any other physical property. In the quote above, Lewis is specifically referring to substance dualism, which further holds that such conscious experiences are generally held to occur to selves. So, for example, there is a conscious experience of a pain, but there is also a self that experiences such a pain — namely the experiencer. And there are thoughts, but also a self that has such thoughts — namely the thinker. This experiencer, thinker, or more simply self, also lacks any physical properties and, therefore, is also non-physical. This self is sometimes referred to as a mental substance, hence the term substance dualism, or what Ralph Lewis and other skeptics often misleadingly and disparagingly label "mind-stuff".

It seems to me to be very difficult to deny that consciousness is non-physical. Regardless of whether brains produce consciousness or not, it seems straightforwardly obvious that consciousness itself lacks mass or any other physical properties. This is in stark contrast to the neural correlates of consciousness. It's also very difficult to deny the existence of a mental substance. For is it intelligible to say there could be, for example, a pain without any entity undergoing that pain? Or that there can be thoughts without a thinker? So, contrary to what Ralph Lewis claims, I'm not sure if it is correct to say any assumptions are being made here. Rather, substance dualism seems to be derived from our immediately lived experience. It is for this reason that substance dualism is the commonsensical position that we are all born believing. Even most of those who emphatically reject an afterlife implicitly accept this commonsensical position.

But is substance dualism contradicted by science? Although it is true that science has not detected either this self or its conscious experiences, the failure here neither suggests anything about their existence nor does it point to a defect of science or contradict it. Science only detects the measurable or quantifiable aspects of reality. Hence, it can detect neurons firing, but it cannot detect the conscious experiences correlated with this neuronal activity. But this doesn’t mean that selves and their conscious experiences don't exist, nor that science is wrong, rather science is simply the wrong tool for the job. Compare this to the fact that a metal detector will fail to detect wood or plastic. We certainly wouldn't conclude that wood and plastic don't exist, nor that the metal detector is working incorrectly. 

He also says:

There is no aspect of the mind, the personality, or the self that is not completely susceptible to chemical influences or physical diseases that disrupt neuronal circuitry.

I have discussed this issue ad nauseam on my blog (a good starting point is here), and skeptics never address how it constitutes overwhelming evidence that the mind is a product of the brain.

Finally, he also says:

So, how is it that scientists are so certain that dualism is false? Quite simply, because for dualism to be true, all of science would have to be false.

 …

Dualism so fundamentally contradicts the foundations and entire accumulated evidence of modern science that in order for it to be true, we would have to start rebuilding modern science from the ground up. If dualism turned out to be true, it would also be a complete mystery or fluke as to how most of our advanced technologies (including all of our electronics) work at all, since their design and engineering are based on the very principles that would necessarily be entirely invalidated if dualism were true.

I'm going to go into a bit more detail here since this is a serious charge to make. For, if true, it places advocates of dualism firmly in the anti-science camp. But why on earth do certain materialists believe this?

From reading around, and especially reading the arguments of the physicist Sean M. Carroll (whom the author appeals to in a footnote), it seems they are convinced that science entails that the physical world is closed. This is the thesis that physical causation wholly accounts for all change in the world, including all of our voluntary behaviour and even the direction our thoughts take. This is what all forms of materialism hold, and at least interactive substance dualism contradicts this since, contrary to the materialists, those who subscribe to it believe consciousness, in and of itself, is causally efficacious. So since substance dualists usually believe in the existence of mental causes in addition to physical ones, they are committed to denying that our current laws can be completely accurate. Does this entail most of our modern technology wouldn't work, as Lewis and others claim?

Firstly, we should remind ourselves that this contravening of physical causal closure only occurs with the impact of consciousness on processes within the brain. This impact will likely be minuscule, most likely on the quantum scale, and hence will be undetectable. After this initial impact by consciousness, we might suppose the usual chains of physical causes and effects apply, cascading this initial minuscule change to larger and larger effects resulting in our voluntary behaviour. But, apart from any changes precipitated by our own voluntary activity, why on earth do they imagine that the rest of physical reality would be affected? After all, the vast preponderance of the Universe is far removed from this initial change precipitated by consciousness.

Secondly, and building upon the first point, the history of science teaches us that our theories give approximations only, even if those approximations might be very close ones. So, for example, the classical mechanics espoused before the advent of Quantum Mechanics is perfectly adequate to describe the macroscopic realm, even though it might be "wrong". Quantum Mechanics is only needed when we describe the microscopic realm (see a blog post by me where I discuss Carroll's argument). Incidentally, Carroll is aware of this point as he states here. However, it seems to me he fails to fully understand it as he seems to think psi, or indeed a causally efficacious consciousness, would represent a radical contravening of our current physical laws rather than merely a minuscule change confined to brains. His position is akin to a 19th-century physicist objecting to the possibility of quantum tunnelling due to it contravening very well-established physical laws. But quantum tunnelling has no direct measurable impact on our familiar macroscopic world. So, Carroll is attacking a straw man.

 

Both of the above points seem to me to definitively establish that Lewis' claim that dualism would entail that our modern technology wouldn't work is sheer nonsense. Furthermore, there are two further points to consider that demonstrate that current laws simply cannot be a full characterisation of reality.

Hence, thirdly, and regardless of whether one subscribes to an afterlife or not, it needs to be pointed out that we immediately experience our own causal efficacy whenever we make any voluntary movement, or even when we entertain a chain of thought. And in case people don't find that convincing, I argue in this blog post in the first two sections that it is simply incoherent to suppose consciousness has no causal impact and, furthermore, that this causal impact necessarily has to be over and above physical causation. 

Fourthly, our current physics leaves out the existence of consciousness in its description of reality (see the hard problem of consciousness) and a fortiori, it also leaves out any causal role that consciousness plays. So, this entails our current theories simply cannot be completely accurate, at least when applied to living brains.

Ralph Lewis seems very certain of himself in the dismissal of an afterlife. But, at least in this article, it does not seem to me that he has brought up anything particularly problematic regarding either interactive substance dualism or an afterlife.

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.

Why are people so certain there's no soul or an afterlife?

Are we essentially souls and will our souls continue on after we die? Both from a philosophical perspective and by virtue of all the evidence, I gravitate strongly towards a "yes" answer.

This is not to say I am certain. For one thing, it all seems very fanciful that at the threshold of death I'll ascend into some other reality, and to perhaps be greeted by dead relatives. We live in a cold, harsh, dreary, material world and it feels implausible, far-fetched, whimsical, and a product of wishful thinking to suppose there's anything beyond this life.

And there's also another reason. The preponderance of educated people, and especially those with a scientific background, emphatically reject the existence of a soul or an afterlife. Indeed, both professional scientists and philosophers appear to be virtually unanimous in this judgement. If so many seemingly intelligent people disagree with me on this issue, and indeed seem so certain in their dismissal of an afterlife, could it be that I am missing something?  That I'm not understanding something?

To be absolutely honest, having extensively read skeptical literature in addition to having thought deeply about this topic for decades, I don't think I am missing anything. I think many educated people are extremely impressed with the phenomenal success of modern science and this has played a pivotal role in encouraging a certain metaphysical view of the world -- namely that the world is wholly material, and that science, at least in principle, can provide a complete account of it. Our fundamental natures, that is what we essentially are, will not be excluded in such an account. Hence, the conclusion is that we are wholly material beings whose behaviour is simply the inevitable consequence of physical laws playing out. In other words, we are no different to any other material object. The existence of consciousness is played down, being reinterpreted as being one and the very same thing as a material process, or even being viewed as simply being an illusion.

Groupthink amongst the intelligentsia reinforces this materialist conception of reality. Even when academics harbour doubts, they are likely to keep such views close to their chests since dissenting views are often ferociously attacked. One notable example here is the philosopher Thomas Nagel who was ferociously attacked for having the temerity to attack materialism in his book Mind and Cosmos . This despite the fact he rejects both an afterlife and a God.

I think that in something like 500 years time, an afterlife might well be universally accepted and many people will look back to this time with some bemusement and even bewilderment at peoples trenchant certainty in materialism. They'll be especially bemused and bewildered at those who believe consciousness is an illusion. Indeed, to a certain extent, the behaviourism of the early 20th century is already viewed with incredulity by many. Human beings, including academics, are very prone to believing in the most fatuous things, and it is often only in retrospect that a sufficient number of people recognise this fatuity for what it is.

So intellectually I believe in an afterlife and for the reasons I have expressed in a number of essays in this blog. Nevertheless, the fact that an afterlife feels fanciful together with so many peoples unwavering certainty that this is the only life there is, does give me pause for thought.     

Russell's argument for the mind being created by the brain

Bertrand Russell (a famous 20th Century philosopher) once said:

"The mind grows like the body; like the body it inherits characteristics from both parents; it is affected by disease of the body and by drugs; it is intimately connected with the brain. There is no scientific reason to suppose that after death the mind or soul acquires an independence of the brain which it never had in life".

Something can be dependent on something else without being created by that something else.  For example, when someone is in a building their ability to see the sky is dependent on windows and the glass in them being relatively clean and so on. But such a dependence only applies when inside the building.  It doesn't depend on the window if they were to venture outside.  Their view of the sky would be, if anything, enhanced.

So Russell needs to say more to justify that the mind or soul couldn't have such an independence.  The mind-body correlations are insufficient in themselves to establish there is no afterlife.

NDE’s, burden of proof, and Ockham’s razor

The other day I read the following Guardian article regarding peoples’ “spiritual experiences” near death.  I’m more interested though in the subsequent comments underneath the article.  A preponderance of the comments are dismissive with many of them claiming that those who are disposed to accept these experiences at face value -- that is those who regard these experiences as suggesting an encounter with an afterlife -- should bear the burden of proof.  Another common claim in the comments is that one should accept the simplest explanation, namely that it is the brain that is producing these experiences.

The Burden of Proof

 

The burden of proof is on those that are making a claim.  Immediately we encounter a problem here since although the author comes across as being sympathetic to the afterlife interpretation, he has not specifically claimed he accepts this interpretation.  Contrariwise, a preponderance of the commentators claim that the brain alone can explain these experiences.  So, it seems the skeptics ought to bear the burden of proof.

However, there is another strategy that skeptics tend to adopt, and that is to say the burden of proof rests upon those who are disposed to accept phenomena that contradict our scientific understanding of how the world works.  They further tend to say we know that science tells us that the brain produces consciousness justifying this knowledge claim by pointing out that the mind is profoundly affected and compromised by a dysfunctional brain e.g. as in dementia.  Hence, to suppose consciousness survives the permanent cessation of the functioning of the brain is an extraordinary claim, and those who make this claim bear the burden of proof.

In other words, those who are disposed to take these “spiritual experiences” at face value bear the burden of proof if, and only if, it is indeed the case that an afterlife contradicts what science has revealed about the world.  And what has science revealed about the world in this context?  According to skeptics it apparently has revealed that the brain produces consciousness!  But then to claim that those who are disposed to believe in an afterlife bear the burden of proof is to presuppose at the very outset that science has shown the brain produces consciousness.  It is therefore mere question begging.

But does science show, or at least strongly suggest, the brain produces consciousness?  I have written extensively about this in other blog posts, and the answer is emphatically no.  Indeed, on the contrary, not only has science not shown any such thing, it could not in principle do so.  See my Neither Modern Materialism nor Science as currently conceived can explain Consciousness.  Specifically, regarding a dysfunctional brain adversely affecting the mind read my Brains affecting Minds do not rule out an Afterlife.  So science doesn't say consciousness is a product of the brain, nor does it say it isn't.  Science, at least as currently conceived, can only be neutral on this issue.  It has nothing to say at all about how or why consciousness exists, least of all whether it can survive the deaths of our bodies.

Ockham’s Razor

 

So much for the burden of proof.  But in the comments there was also the claim that we ought to accept the simplest explanation.   This is to appeal to Ockham’s razor.  This can broadly be thought of as a rule of thumb that says that when you have two or more competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, in the absence of further evidence the simplest one is to be preferred.  Simpler in the sense it invokes the fewer number of assumptions than the competing theories. 

Now, the immediate problem here is that regardless of whether the brain produces consciousness or otherwise, we lack any theories either way.  Indeed, it is why we have had the mind-body problem for the past couple of thousand years.  But, the hypothesis that the brain produces consciousness has a special apparent problem in this regard since, as I explain in my Brains affecting Minds do not rule out an Afterlife, not only do we not currently have a mechanism whereby brain processes could produce conscious experiences, but there is no conceivable mechanism that could be revealed.  This is why many contemporary philosophers and scientists are reductive materialists since materialism circumvents this problem by identifying brain processes or their function with specific conscious experiences.  However, I have argued that reductive materialism is not tenable.  See my Why the existence of consciousness rules modern materialism out.

Of course we also lack a mechanism or scientific story of how a immaterial self or soul relates to the body, but unlike the brain producing consciousness thesis, this does not appear to be an intractable problem.  Even if it were, clearly the lack of explanations or theories for either possibility entails we can scarcely apply Ockham’s razor here.

If anything the onus should surely be on those who dispute that these experiences are indicative of an afterlife. After all, the most compelling argument for annihilation is that as we approach death our consciousness diminishes gradually until it reaches zero. But, for those who have NDE's, they often state they were more conscious than they have ever felt in their lives, and this at the threshold of death. Are we to imagine that at that moment their consciousness plunges to zero? This seems incongruous to me.  A similar point can be applied to terminal lucidity.  Such experiences have to be post-hoc rationalised away by the skeptic, often utilizing convoluted conventional explanations.  Then, of course, they have to face the apparent irreconcilable difficulty of explaining how the brain or the whole body could produce consciousness.

Conclusion

 

Whatever the specific issue that is being argued over I disapprove of either side declaring their position should be considered to be correct in the absence of their opponents proving their case.  One should not win by default. Moreover, often both sides will dispute who has the burden of proof, and who Ockham’s razor favours.  Since this is often not clear cut, and indeed, as I explain above, the appeal to such principles often presupposes one’s position, then the prospect of any fruitful exchange of views is a forlorn one.

My purpose in this post was not to argue that NDEs and deathbed visions are proof of an afterlife.  Although I do think that these phenomena strongly suggest an afterlife, there are problems with this evidence as I acknowledge in part 9 of my A Response to The Myth of an Afterlife. My task in this post was merely to dispute that those disposed to believe NDE’s suggest an afterlife bear the burden of proof, or that appealing to Ockham’s razor renders the afterlife hypothesis unlikely.  

Brains affecting Minds do not rule out an Afterlife

The following essay is essentially an expanded and updated version of a previous blog post I've written called: Why are we all so convinced the brain produces consciousness?

1. The arguments for the thesis that the brain produces consciousness

To believe in an afterlife, at least in the form of a soul dwelling in some afterlife realm, is to suppose our consciousness can exist independently of our bodies.  However, there appears to be a crippling obstacle to holding such a view, namely the apparent dependence of our mental states on a properly functioning brain. For example, our capacity to understand written and spoken words and the capacity to speak are impaired or even eliminated with injuries to certain regions of the brain. Damage to the hippocampal and thalamic areas of the brain can destroy one's ability to store new long-term memories. More radically, injury to the brain can result in significant personality change; the most famous example here being undoubtedly Phineas Gage.  To top it all off, we could also point to the fact that drugs have a propensity to affect our emotions, attitudes, and dispositions. Indeed, even alcohol and caffeine do this. Taking all this into account, it seems more or less certain to many people that it is the brain that somehow or other gives rise to our consciousness – that is it is the brain that gives rise to all our thoughts, feelings, perceptions and so on.  Hence, how could our consciousness possibly survive the death of our bodies and brains?

In my experience, proponents of an afterlife appear to largely ignore these facts.  Instead, they counter with the evidence for an afterlife such as NDE’s, mediumship, recollections of alleged previous lives, and so on.  The problem here is that if it is indeed the case that the mind-brain correlations makes it more or less certain that the brain produces consciousness, then such evidence, no matter how apparently powerful, cannot possibly point to an afterlife.   Hence, for example, NDE’s, interesting as they may be, cannot possibly represent any sort of encounter with some afterlife realm.  They must somehow be hallucinations produced by the brain. 

2. Reasons to question this thesis

Let’s consider the following argument:

It surely must be obvious to everyone that eyeglasses actually create vision. Changing the lenses affects the vision in certain characteristic ways. One can make one's vision worse, or better. One can make one be able to see in the distance, but not close up; or conversely, to see close up, but not at a distance. We can invert peoples' vision. We can make people see everything in blue, or red, or green; you name it. Or all blurry. By painting the lenses black we can even eliminate one's vision completely! And all these effects are consistent across different people.

Of course, we know that eyeglasses don’t create vision. Indeed, we know in principle that eyeglasses could not create vision all by themselves since there is no appropriate mechanism, or conceivable causal chain, whereby vision could be created. Extra ingredients are required; namely eyes and the part of the brain dealing with vision.

Other examples apart from eyeglasses can be considered. Thus, consider a prism. The mixture of coloured lights obtained is not wholly produced by the prism all by itself. Something extra is involved, in this case, the white light that enters the prism. Or consider a TV set. The internal components all by themselves do not produce the programmes. Similar to the prism something else is involved, in this case, TV signals.

How can we be so confident that the relationship between our consciousness and our brains (and more generally our bodies) is not of a similar nature to these examples?  Perhaps our conscious states are merely affected by our brains?  Perhaps the brain merely either facilitates or inhibits the ability to perceive, think, feel, deliberate and so on, not creates them?  Is this plausible?

The unreflective view is that consciousness is supposed to come into being as the end consequence of material chains of causes and effects.  Such causes and effects are cashed out completely in the form of processes that we can measure; namely particles with physical properties such as charge, momentum, spin and so on.  Each link in the chain of causality follows as a direct result of these properties.  But, at the end of such causal chains, we get a sudden abrupt change, a radical disconnect from these measurable processes to subjective experiences such as the greenness of grass, the warmth of love, the smell of roses and so on.  These subjective experiences do not have physical properties, so we cannot, seemingly in principle, derive them from the prior physical causal chains.  

So, if consciousness is indeed produced by the brain, then it seems it just suddenly springs into existence.  I am not able to understand how this differs in any substantive manner from supposing eyeglasses could actually create vision rather than merely modifying it, or prisms actually produce colored light rather than merely modifying existing white light, or the innards of TV sets actually create the programs shown rather than merely modifying and changing TV signals.  Of course, in these other examples, we know how the end phenomenon comes about.  Yet, if we lacked this knowledge, we surely would not, for example, suppose that the innards of a TV set, all by themselves, could produce TV programs with their storylines.  It would be miraculous.  Why should the supposition that the brain creates consciousness be considered to be different, to be any less miraculous?  Why reject the more plausible alternative that consciousness exists all along, with the brain merely serving to facilitate or inhibit conscious states?  

3. The Materialist Option

People are aware of this problem of how the brain creates consciousness, or at least philosophers are.  By far the most common solution, at least amongst the scholarly community, is to adopt a position called materialism.   Modern materialism is essentially the position that science, or at least some ideal science, investigates the totality of reality.  Since science investigates reality via its measurable aspects, modern materialism holds that only these measurable aspects of reality exist.

In section 2 I mentioned that subjective experiences are supposed to come into being as the end consequence of material chains of causes and effects.  Materialism denies this.  Since modern materialism holds that only these material chains exist, there can be no additional facts in the form of subjective conscious experiences that we cannot measure. Instead, conscious experiences are typically either conflated with appropriate material processes within the brain, or conflated with the causal role that such material processes play.

It’s hard to get across how radical materialism is.  It is far more than simply saying the brain somehow produces consciousness.  Rather, strict modern materialism asserts there is only the brain and processes within it, and consciousness -- at least in terms of qualitative subjective experiences -- is somehow illusionary, that it has no real concrete existence at all.  I do not regard such a position as tenable and I go into detail why I believe this here and here.  However, even if one were to argue that it is tenable, why on earth believe it?  I have argued that although consciousness is affected by the brain, it is not necessarily produced by it.  In fact, it seems the only way it could be produced by the brain were if some variety of materialism is correct.  But we were never forced into supposing the brain must produce consciousness in the first place.  Hence, even if -- contrary to my own position -- it were possible to argue modern materialism is a viable position, there is no need to adopt such an uncommonsensical position.

4. An Objection

It is often argued that we lack any enduring nature since we change so much over time.  Hence our moods, demeanour, interests, intelligence, and so on change throughout our lives.  Compared to when we were children we now have a much increased intelligence, we have differing interests, we have differing memories, our emotional reactions are very different. Even during the course of one day, our moods can change significantly.  And just consider how much people change after a few alcoholic drinks.

This being so, if there’s an afterlife, what survives?  Myself as a child at 7 years of age, or as a young adult at 21, or when I’m an old man at 81?  Or some other age? When drunk or sober? Does the impossibility of answering this question suggest that the brain must somehow produce consciousness?

This issue pertains to personal identity.  What is it that makes me the very same person from one decade to the next, or indeed one day to the next?  If we cash out personal identity in terms of intelligence, interests, memories and so on, it seems we do not literally survive from childhood to adulthood.  This entails that not only is there no afterlife, but given that I’m now an adult, my 10 year old self has now quite literally ceased to exist.  And when we imbibe lots of alcohol our sober selves quite literally cease to exist, even if only temporarily. 

But why subscribe to such a radical uncommonsensical notion of personal identity?  Perhaps what constitutes the self is not my interests, intelligence, memories and so on.  Perhaps what constitutes my self is that sense of me-ness that has endured since I was a child, to when I'm drunk, to what I am now.  Consider a table.  Depending on what it is made of, it might acquire certain types of scratches as it grows older.  But, no matter how many scratches it acquires, it is still the very same table.  The scratches do not comprise the table, even though what the table is made of determines the type of scratches and how easily it acquires them.  In a comparative manner, maybe my interests, intelligence, memories and so on do not comprise my self even though my self influences them.  Going back to the eyeglasses, my vision can be altered in a variety of ways by trying on differing eyeglasses.  Nevertheless, that does not alter the fact that there is an unaided vision which remains unchanged throughout my life, even though we may never experience it.  It might be the case likewise for my self, and it is this self that survives should there be an afterlife.

5. Conclusion

It seems to me that the mind-brain correlations argument against an afterlife is significantly less compelling than people think.  If the afterlife hypothesis is to be regarded as an extraordinary one, then it is my position that other arguments or evidence, apart from the mind-body correlations, need to be appealed to.  However, I am not aware of any other such arguments. Of course, even if it is not regarded as an extraordinary hypothesis, it needn’t be true either.  Implausible that it might be, perhaps consciousness does suddenly appear with a functioning brain, even though we lack any conceivable causal chain as to how this could happen.  Philosophical speculation can only take us so far.  We also need to look at the evidence for an afterlife – NDE’s, memories of past lives, mediumship and so on – before reaching any provisional conclusions.

P.S. I attempted to get this essay published in a magazine called Philosophy Now.   It was rejected, moreover it was rejected within approximately 5 minutes after I had sent it.  I cover what happened here.

Stephen Hawking's last book

In his last book Brief Answers to the Big Questions Stephen Hawking said:

"No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realisation: there is probably no heaven and afterlife either. I think belief in the afterlife is just wishful thinking.

It flies in the face of everything we know in science. I think that when we die we return to dust".

So his "profound realisation" wasn't some sort of mystical insight, or moment of enlightenment, but rather because science tells us there's no God or an afterlife.

It might be convenient here to repeat what I've said in other blog posts on this science rules out an afterlife and God contention (in this blog see relevant posts here, here, here, here, here esp part 7, here and in my other blog see here, here).  Science deals exclusively with the quantifiable or measurable (at least currently). Consciousness cannot be quantified or measured. Hence consciousness, at least as science is currently conceived, escapes the purview of science. This is regardless of whether consciousness is embodied or whether there is any possible disembodied consciousness. As it stands science simply has nothing to say about whether consciousness could survive the death of our bodies. To contend otherwise is rather like somebody operating a metal detector making proclamations regarding the existence or non-existence of plastic, wood and rubber.

As for a "God", clearly it depends on one's conception of God. However, the regularities ("physical laws") describing the Universe could not possibly explain the existence of the Universe. This is simply to misunderstand what science does. How so?

Think of a computer game. In order to play a 3D game proficiently, we need to know how the game environment changes when the character moves and behaves in particular ways. The character you control who presses buttons in the game environment will cause certain things to happen in that environment. Shooting at certain spots will cause other things, such as "killing" a bot. And so on and so forth.

One can become extremely proficient at a game. Yet, at the same time, one might know absolutely nothing about what makes the game possible to exist in the first place, and why the game environment changes in the characteristic way it does. In other words, one might know nothing about the computer software, CPU's, RAM, or anything else about the underlying machinery of the computer, even though one might be better at the game than anyone else.

I submit that our science, together with the technology it has spawned, is analogous to playing a computer game proficiently. I submit, that is, that science deals exclusively with the patterns discerned in reality and how the world changes with particular actions on our parts. Similar to the game, science tells us absolutely nothing about the underlying machinery of reality. Science tells us nothing about how or why the world exists at all and why it has the particular physical laws it does. That is what metaphysics deals with. In particular, science could not possibly shed any light on a suitably sophisticated God.

Why are we all so convinced the brain produces consciousness?

Most people seem to take it for granted that the brain produces consciousness and they surmise this because when the brain is damaged, the person’s mind is also damaged. Such damage not only can result in the diminishing of one’s mental capacities, it often seemingly changes the actual personality. The obvious conclusion is that the brain produces consciousness, otherwise why should the mind be affected?

Proponents of an afterlife almost invariably ignore this argument.  Instead they counter with the evidence for an afterlife such as NDE’s, mediumship, recollections of alleged previous lives, and so on.  It seems to me that implicitly, therefore, they are conceding to the skeptic that this mind-brain correlations argument is a very powerful one indeed and to be avoided. However, it is my contention that there is no need for the proponent to avoid addressing this argument head-on since, as I shall argue, it appears to be considerably less powerful than it is often thought. 

Let’s consider the following related argument: 

It surely must be obvious to everyone that spectacles (i.e. eyeglasses) actually create vision. Changing the lenses affects the vision in certain characteristic ways. One can make one's vision worse, or better. One can make one be able to see in the distance, but not close up; or conversely, to see close up, but not at a distance. We can invert peoples' vision. We can make people see everything in blue, or red, or green, you name it. Or all blurry. By painting the lenses black we can even eliminate one's vision completely! And all these effects are consistent across different people.

Of course, we know that spectacles don’t create vision. Indeed, we know in principle that spectacles could not create vision all by themselves since there is no appropriate mechanism, or conceivable causal chain, whereby vision could be created. Extra ingredients are required; namely eyes and the part of the brain dealing with vision.

Other examples apart from spectacles can be considered. Thus, consider a prism. The mixture of coloured lights obtained is not wholly produced by the prism all by itself. Something extra is involved, in this case, the white light that enters the prism. Or consider a TV set. The internal components all by themselves do not produce the programmes. Similar to the prism something else is involved, in this case, TV signals. 

So it cannot be that the mind-brain correlations all by themselves establish that the brain creates consciousness, for how are we in a position to rule out that the relationship of consciousness to the brain is not of a similar nature to the forgoing examples where there is an extra ingredient involved; namely what we would call a self or soul?  In fact, I would go further and maintain that the brain- consciousness relationship is indeed of a similar nature to these examples. That is to say, similarly to the complete implausibility of expecting vision to be created from spectacles all by themselves, likewise it is similarly implausible to expect consciousness to be created from brains and the processes within them all by themselves. 

Consciousness is supposed to come into being as the end consequence of physical chains of causes and effects.  Such causes and effects are cashed out in the form of processes that we can measure; namely particles with physical properties such as charge, momentum, spin and so on, and their interactions. But at the end of such causal chains we get a sudden abrupt change from these measurable processes to subjective experiences such as, for example, the greenness of grass, the warmth of love, the smell of roses and so on. It seems we have an unbridgeable yawning ontological chasm between the termination of such physical causal chains, and such raw experiences. There is no appropriate mechanism, or conceivable causal chain, whereby such qualitative experiences could be created. The sensible conclusion then is to surely suppose that consciousness was there all along, and the processes within the brain merely affect its manifestation.  Compare to the spectacles example.  Spectacles affect vision, they can even block our vision completely if we paint the lenses black, nevertheless the unaided vision exists all along.  The spectacles do not, and could not, create vision.

An Objection

 

It is often argued that we lack any enduring nature since we change so much over time.  Hence our moods, demeanour, interests, intelligence, change throughout our lives.  Compared to when we were children we now have a much increased intelligence, we have differing interests, we have differing memories, our emotional reactions are very different. Even during the course of one day our moods can change significantly.  And just consider how much people change after a few alcohol drinks.

But all this just means that if we should find ourselves surviving the death of our bodies, then it is the underlying self that survives. What constitutes my self is that sense of me-ness that has endured since I was a child, to when I'm drunk, to what I am now. The fact that our interests, intelligence, demeanour change etc, is ultimately no more significant than, for example, the fact a table acquires scratches as it ages. Or to use the spectacles analogy, it is the unaided vision that is comparable to the self and survives.

None of the foregoing entails that there is an afterlife.  But I do think that the mind-brain correlations argument against an afterlife is significantly less compelling than people think it is.