Thank you for this profound, provocative and enlightening post!! While it’s painful to accept our limitations and to face the hard stop that death may be, the tonic is the beauty and comfort of communicating and sharing perspectives, showing love and living in the moment. You achieved that and much more here - for this, you have my deepest gratitude.
"While it’s painful to accept our limitations and to face the hard stop that death may be..."
Does the Author actually face the reality of Death or live in denial?
He says this:
"But again, even if we were sure that were the case, we still don’t know what happens when we die in this Universe (or whatever one we originally stem from)" And seems to dance around the issue repeatedly.
If our consciousness is created by our brain (the effects of cutting off oxygen to the brain strongly suggest it is a required component in consciousness) and our brain stops functioning when we die, then nothing happens when we die.
Thanks for the response. Since you’d suggested I was “in denial” above, I thought i was just returning the tone. But all good.
Your logic regarding consciousness ceasing with death appears based on the unproven notion that consciousness is wholly created by the brain. But as I mentioned in the original piece, studying consciousness scientifically is fraught, near impossible. Because we cannot validate others experience or memory, any experiences of individuals claiming to return from death, or experience consciousness outside their bodies…which are extensive…are dismissed as unreliable anecdotes, dreams or fantasies. We have no proof where consciousness emanates, just the observation that consciousness no longer inhabits a body after its brain death. But this doesn’t prove the nature of consciousness, just a link between consciousness and body being mediated by the brain.
You seem to dismiss out of hand ideas where you cannot fathom a rational mechanism, referencing magic. Just remember, reality often works in crazy ways. Could you have fathomed the mechanisms behind photosynthesis? Or gravity? We humans have the senses to observe the results of these processes, so no one doubts their existence. Much of the point of this article was to point out where our senses/circumstances lack means to make scientific observations. consciousness at death…collapse of the wave function…good luck observing these things scientifically and reporting back.
One approachable possibility is the simulation. I nearly included in this piece some related musings from Descartes. He fathomed centuries ago that he might inhabit a reality wholly constructed by a demon testing his faith and character and obscuring the true nature of reality. After all, “i think therefore I am” is about the only thing Descartes was certain, he recognized explicitly that the senses are fallible.
This seems to me an early version of the same concept of “living in a simulation.” Perhaps Descartes fathomed this as mechanically as requiring “magic.” But also remember, sufficiently advanced technology appears as magic to less sophisticated observers. Today, we can rationally fathom an artificial reality being delivered like in the move The Matrix.
Perhaps my conceptions of “hell” are quite flexible. But fathom for a moment that after death in a simulated reality, some higher consciousness beings reviewed and judged your behavior in the simulation and then decided the circumstances of your next simulation. Any form of punishment metered out here might be considered “hell” or some form of “karmic retribution.” It need not take the traditional form of a fiery place with pointy tailed demons. it could take any form really. We simply have no means of knowing. Like Pascal believed.
I, for one, can fathom this scenario without the use of the word simulation or the idea of computer technology. Replace “higher consciousness beings “ with “devils and angels”, computer technology with a metaphysical technology humans don’t understand and viola…there’s your more traditional Christian conception of the afterlife.
Your logic regarding consciousness ceasing with death appears based on the unproven notion that consciousness is wholly created by the brain"
Close but no. My concept is that the Brain is a key component of consciousness, which if you removed it from the equation, we wouldn't have consciousness. Which is demonstrated by my example. Explain to me why you lose consciousness, when you starve the brain of oxygen, if it the brain isn't required.
"You seem to dismiss out of hand ideas where you cannot fathom a rational mechanism, referencing magic. Just remember, reality often works in crazy ways. Could you have fathomed the mechanisms behind photosynthesis? Or gravity? We humans have the senses to observe the results of these processes, so no one doubts their existence."
Let me reverse this observation onto your position. You know human beings have observed and measured the effects of oxygen starvation on consciousness, so why do you doubt this process?
"One approachable possibility is the simulation. I nearly included in this piece some related musings from Descartes. He fathomed centuries ago that he might inhabit a reality wholly constructed by a demon testing his faith and character and obscuring the true nature of reality. After all, “i think therefore I am” is about the only thing Descartes was certain, he recognized explicitly that the senses are fallible."
This just an attempt to increase the gaps you are trying to fit your spiritualism into. Let's imagine we are in a simulation, what changes? Your argument is seemingly when we die, maybe we just wake up. This is a philosophy 101 scenario designed to make you ask, how do I know what I know. Yes, Descartes point that the only thing we can know with certainty is that we exist, is true in a sense. However you start to get pretty solipsistic at that point.
The only reason we are able to have this debate about whether we are in a simulation, is because the concept is elastic. Imagine you were arguing there was non-human intelligent life. Now imagine I had some method of searching the entire universe and proved that no other intelligent life existed. Then you say to me 'well what if we live in a simulation and other intelligent life just exists in a _different_ simulation.'
You moved to the simulation argument, not because you have meaningful reason to believe a simulation exists but because it allows you to believe other things that don't have meaningful evidence.
"I, for one, can fathom this scenario without the use of the word simulation or the idea of computer technology. Replace “higher consciousness beings “ with “devils and angels”, computer technology with a metaphysical technology humans don’t understand and viola…there’s your more traditional Christian conception of the afterlife."
Ok, but do we have any reason to actually believe that?
Thanks again for responding Daniel! You have interesting ideas and a sharp mind. I’ve taken some of your arguments and observations to help improve my organization and clarity- so thank you for helping me improve this. But I also find it amusing you think I’m riddled with conformation bias when I am adamant I don’t know the answers to confirm and instead insist on respect for uncertainty. This seems like the opposite of confirmation bias to me. Adamant refusal to be biased and fill in a gap with assumptions seems more fitting. I’d perhaps consider applying this label to your arguments which seem to insist on confirming widely assumed, unproven conditions (that cannot be confirmed as far as I can tell.)
It seems like this pattern has emerged where you are seeking pieces of evidence to confirm what I’ve mentioned are some of the possibilities of what might occur. But thats the thing - I’m saying that these are only possibilities to consider once you’ve accepted the uncertainty. I am calling out that our typical means of knowledge verification - via scientific method - fails here. And so perhaps its wise to stop trying to fit a square peg in a round hole and instead explore other strategies.
Re: brain oxygen and consciousness - I keep repeating how studying consciousness is fraught as one cannot climb inside another’s mind. But you don’t seem to buy this and instead seem to believe one can study consciousness at death from the outside. I pointed out that from that perspective, one only proves body-consciousness connection being mediated by the brain.
You seem to dismiss that consciousness could leave a body. I don’t understand why - you seem to reference a lack of evidence, but many have experienced their consciousness leaving their body and having extensive out of body experience. I guess because this evidence is not scientific in nature you’ve dismissed it totally. This is exactly the problem with using scientific method to try to get answers it cannot possibly - its the whole point of my piece! I find this thinking to be unwise, misguided and counterproductive to pursuit of knowledge, a road block that stops inquiry with assumption. Dogma.
I am willing to consider reports of such experience are commonly experienced artifacts of brain stress or something similar, but I’m also willing to consider its possible some are due to consciousness leaving the body.
Note than even if if 99% of people had similar out of body experiences, it would still appear unscientific to the remaining 1% right?
I lean on ‘simulations’ because mechanistically, this is easier to conceptualize and explain, especially to those resistant to any possibility but “hard stop at death.” You asked for an example of how hell could exist without “magic” - the simulation example demonstrates such, and perhaps helps one open up one’s imagination to possibilities available due to advanced tech that might seem the realm of “magic” otherwise.
I concur that the existence of simulations wouldn’t change anything from a metaphysical perspective- that uncertainty around mortality remains regardless. I attempted to acknowledge this in the original piece with “But again, even if we were sure that were the case, we still don’t know what happens when we die in this Universe (or whatever one we originally stem from).”
I don’t insist you should believe any conception of reality/mortality …or that any of these are likely…. or the most likely scenario, like the Christian conception. Just that perhaps one should not dismiss these possibilities dogmatically. I don’t find the Christian conception of the afterlife to be particularly likely, btw. I find the ‘hard stop’ to be most likely, a possibility we must contend with. But I find also find validity in a ton of spiritual ideas from cultures all over the world.
Again, even if we calculate the chances to be near zero, the game theory I see is that the potential implications are so monumental, some possibilities still must be respected.
This uncertainty surrounding mortality is an essential part of the human condition as far as I can tell. It should engender humility and respect for diverse perspectives and conceptions imo. We are all just co-traveling an uncertain universe with uncertain rules and an uncertain end point - pretending to have
more answers than we do is hubristic and may be harmful if taken to extremes, without any respect for other possibilities. The assumption that our existence is as short and meaningless as imaginable due to limitations of the scientific method is simply irrational - respect for wider possibilities and diverse spiritual perspectives is warranted given the uncertainty and unsuitability for scientific study.
Please check out my piece I recently reposted on comparative mythology pioneer Joseph Campbell as a spiritual/moral Superman. I contend he reframed Nietzsche‘s rationalization that God is dead, in a manner that philosophically rationalized PostModernism. It is not God that Galileo killed - its religious dogma and conceptions regarding the “supernatural”
This article is an elaborate god of the gaps argument. No matter how complex or floral the language it rests on two key assumptions:
1) The proponent believes they can know all possible scientific explanations and rule them out.
2) The proponent, having ruled out all scientific explanations, argues they can reach meaningful and falsifiable conclusions without using the scientific method.
For example:
""But these observations do not get us any closer to answering our most fundamental spiritual questions: what happened before the big bang and how did it all get there?"
Why is that fundamental? The assumed answer seems to be that there is a God that meaningfully interferes post the big bang. What evidence do we have of this? If this being doesn't actively interfere (i.e. a deistic God) what difference would there be between that and a non-existent God?
"Or is there some continuation, some afterlife or reincarnation?"
This a question science has answered. The answer is no. Lets do a hypothetical, you wrap your arms around my throat and squeeze hard enough that oxygen stops flowing to my brain. What happens if you do that for long enough? I lose conscious. Crucially, I would lose conscious _before_ dying. Whilst that doesn't prove the brain is entirely responsible for consciousness, it does demonstrate that the brain is essential for consciousness. Death is the brain ceasing to function, ergo death is the end of our consciousness.
This also renders Pascal's Wager meaningless but lets assume that there is someone judging us (despite, as far as I am aware, there being no evidence for this). Even then Pascal's Wager doesn't hold water. Pascal's Wager only makes sense if a) There is one knowable God or set of Gods and b) We can know what that being wants from us. There are thousands of religions with conflicting beliefs and practices. Adhering to any specific religion could anger this God by committing Blasphemy (Oops, you lost the wager because you picked the wrong religion). Maybe this God values rationality and anyone who believed in a God, without reason, would be viewed by this God as irrational and unworthy (Oops, you lost the wager because God was testing you by creating a universe that should have lead you to the opposite conclusion).
You make this point: "That is, demonstrate kindness and compassion to Humankind present and future; work to provide and care for oneself, loved ones, guests and occasionally others in need when possible; address conflicts as peacefully and cooperatively as possible. Approach this enthusiastically and passionately even, if you can conjure it. Why not?"
Why do you seem to assume that your God has values that match your own? The Ancient Greeks often portrayed Gods behaving like Humans (having sex, fighting, getting jealous etc.) Why? Probably because as human beings, they had difficulty envisioning beings who were extremely powerful, extremely long living and would have had massively different experiences and outlooks to human beings. If this God had your values and is powerful enough to create the universe, why do genocides, diseases and natural disasters occur? (Free will does not explain diseases, particularly genetic ones) If you had the ability to stop those things, wouldn't you?
"Whether or not we are compelled to have faith in free will or God viscerally, it is rational and logical to choose to have such faith. Or at least to try. Our choices are pretty binary in these matters." You seem to do this often in the article. That is one of many subtle but noticeable false dichotomies. How about using Skepticism as the founding of a complex and empathetic morality? By understanding that there is no moral law giver, no objective morality, one almost necessarily needs to question how to make moral decisions.
This can (though obviously not always) lead to Humanism or Utilitarianism. By predicating morality on a principle of do the least harm and the most good, one can continue to try and improve, rather than settling for dogma or just interpreting scripture to reinforce your existing beliefs.
I found this section particularly damning of your logical process:
"If there is no God and everything is so mechanical and explainable by formulae and number crunching, then how could we possibly have free will either? Aren’t we just then watching a movie with some extra sensations and an internal monologue? Sorry - that seems so _unappealing_ and not particularly rational either."
Something being unappealing has no influence on its rationality or truth. It is also another example of those subtle false dichotomies. Why would having an all powerful creator being be more conducive to free will? Would there be any real way to do something this creator being didn't want us to do? Just because there wouldn't be specific programming in the back ground of such a universe, doesn't mean it would be any different in practice.
Lets assume the universe doesn't have a God. Why would that prevent us having goodwill? Do you have any reason to gain say this hypothetical, other than the fact you don't like it? If you don't, that is just an appeal to consequences fallacy something that would be "...irrational...".
"These provide framework over the gaping voids science can never fill. They help us build solid, moral-spiritual structure that might otherwise be filled by the wobbly, flavor-of-the-moment garbage emanating from the impulses and self-interests of nihilism." This is another false dichotomy. Your assumption appears to a moron and racist's (Elon Musk) view of nihilism versus spirituality. You also seem to assume science has nothing to say on these topics.
Psychology explains a lot about how and why people make decisions (including things like confirmation bias). It explains why people benefit from religion (community, routine, a purpose) but in doing so it demonstrates that religion doesn't offer anything that can't be found else where. It doesn't require a belief in God for me to find meaning from my family, DnD and sport. It also doesn't require me to be a member of a church to have empathy for racially oppressed minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals, people who are physically or mentally ill, victims of dictators and war. It just takes empathy, careful assessment of any belief, along with the willingness to accept that I will be wrong (and have been) sometimes.
I appreciate your thoughtful comments Daniel. Thank you for reading and responding although I think you’d find your two assumptions about my logic are not accurate. Obviously we disagree on some points, although probably less than you might think.
Point taken on the unappealing nature of determinism being insignificant to the nature of reality. I guess my point is that if there is not a rational answer to certain questions (as Pascal recognized), and we just can never know for certain an answer, then perhaps it is rational to choose an answer that is respectful of the uncertainty and all the downstream consequences. Hell or karmic retribution might not exist of course, but science has not disproven these either. We must live our lives without a clear answer. ‘Ed’s wager’ mentioned here is simply to accept the uncertainty, and then it becomes clear that acting with fundamental decency is the sensible, rational thing to do given that uncertainty.
I think you have taken my statements to be more certain than intended - much of my point is … we as humans tend to think we understand our universe better than we do. I am a scientist with tons of respect for the scientific method and all it has validated for us. But I also recognize that we humans continue answering questions with scientific inquiry, and rather than putting anything to bed, the new discoveries tend to bring new mysteries rather than secure answers to these most fundamental questions.
My conception of God is less personal and more conceptual - a metaphor for the incomprehensible and unknowable more than a supernatural, omnipotent being. I’d be happy to repost my article re Joseph Campbell to more fully explain that position. I’m also not intending to promote churchgoing or any specific religion, rather respect for soulful truth-seeking and sharing of meaning, respect for the voids science cannot answer or has not yet answered. I don’t think this sort of searching/sharing needs to happen in church or with practice of any religion. Indeed, the strict dogma of much religious practice prohibits this sort of exchange, unfortunately. But so do dogmatic beliefs about science. The arts seem to foster and embody this exchange as much as anything else imo. I had originally included this dope modern dance video as an example of where I have found meaning, where love becomes an answer (or at least a consolation prize) to existential dread, seems to speak to some of the issues mentioned here:
This article seeks to dispel dogmatic positions regarding total reliance on materialism… and scientific inquiry to dig into it…as the only forms of legitimate truth and truth seeking. To foster respect for the more uncertain immaterial, philosophical and spiritual that our modern society tends to discount.
Science just cannot answer certain fundamental questions. This “measurement problem” in particle physics gets to the heart of the issue - we will simply never be able to observe certain aspects of reality and therefore scientific method is not going to give satisfying answers. There has been a debate raging in physics for a century - is it scientific to even posit theories (like Many Worlds theory) that cannot be tested? Or is that the realm of philosophy and religion? Would reality “care” if it took a form that humans cannot test with science? I certainly don’t believe so. Even Einstein seems to have posited theories that appear untestable - does that make him an irrational mystic rather than a scientist?
I disagree about death and consciousness. Scientific method has not come close to providing clear answers on these issues. See the below video regarding scientific opinions on consciousness, which are obviously unproven and controversial, but also obviously not settled either.
The nature of consciousness is not well understood scientifically - so understanding what occurs to it at death is also not understood. There are two common theories, the one you suggest regarding consciousness wholly stemming from brain activity, and another where the brain is more like an antenna that perhaps modulates and focuses consciousness. I tend to think the former is disproven because too-small entities (like some single cell organisms and cells) clearly display consciousness for it to be wholly created by brain function. The later leaves open the possibility that consciousness is eternal or at least outlasts our body. I don’t pretend to have all the answers!
my writing here was not to lead you to believe any sort of specific dogmatic belief or any conception of God, but rather to dispel dogmatic beliefs, religious or scientific. To have respect for the uncertainty of our mortality and to incorporate that into morality. My thinking is that exactly because we don’t know, we therefore must proceed with utmost caution and respect for our souls and others. Science does not and cannot answer so many most important fundamental questions. So maybe its better we look elsewhere for answers to those questions. I don’t attempt to provide any specifics after that, just to promote respect for this uncertainty and for search for truth and meaning (atheist, theist or agnostic).
Cheers, again thanks for reading and commenting!!!
"Point taken on the unappealing nature of determinism being insignificant to the nature of reality".
Thank you for acknowledging that.
"I guess my point is that if there is not a rational answer to certain questions (as Pascal recognized..."
He didn't recognize that. He claimed it. I think you need to be more critical of your choice of language and the assumptions implied by those choices. He makes a claim that you agree with and therefore he is simply recognizing an inarguable truth. I already disputed his claim in the comment you were replying to. This comes across as an inability to tackle these ideas from a neutral position. An inability to honestly interrogate your assumptions.
"and we just can never know for certain an answer, then perhaps it is rational to choose an answer that is respectful of the uncertainty and all the downstream consequences."
This a misleading portrayal of what you are doing. How can you rationally reach a conclusion that is unfalsifiable?
"Hell or karmic retribution might not exist of course, but science has not disproven these either. We must live our lives without a clear answer."
Neither exist. How could hell exist? You know without magic? Because in the same paragraph you used the term rational. Which you clearly think you are being but just think about what you are claiming. 1) We have no evidence for Hell 2) Hell might exist. Therefore we should follow your morality. Why? You don't know if hell exists and you have no claim to objective morality. There are absolutely people in history who have made this argument, who had no problem with slavery. This is because morality changes over time (or our understanding of it improves but I wouldn't assume it is a straight line thing). How do you know what is moral? You don't know that your definition of being nice would see you avoid hell.
You know what would be a better reason to be nice? Not wanting harm other people. You know what that doesn't require? Placing a wager on the non-existent chance that Hell exists.
"Ed’s wager’ mentioned here is simply to accept the uncertainty"
That's the problem. You go from we don't know all the answers, to I know the answer, even though my answer is completely detached from reality. It is just an excuse for you to turnoff the rational part of your brain.
"I tend to think the former is disproven because too-small entities (like some single cell organisms and cells) clearly display consciousness for it to be wholly created by brain function. The later leaves open the possibility that consciousness is eternal or at least outlasts our body. I don’t pretend to have all the answers!
That video is a man (albeit a well credentialed one) conflating an unknown ability to survive in an unexpected chemical environment, with intelligence. Those are not the same thing and nothing about that argument refutes the fact that brain stops functioning without oxygen and our consciousness measurably goes with it. Let's assume your analogy of our body being antennae holds. How? Where are the other scientists making this claim (the ones not selling a self help book)?
I explained an incredibly simple example of how mechanically you can demonstrate consciousness is caused or definitely relies on the brain. You answered with I think the brain is an antenna. Yet you as a self proclaimed scientist didn't cite a scientific paper making this very serious scientific claim, you cited a YouTube video advertising a self help book.
"therefore must proceed with utmost caution and respect for our souls"
What is a soul and how do you know it exists?
"Science does not and cannot answer so many most important fundamental questions."
And yet you tried to provide a scientific answer to my claim that without the brain your consciousness doesn't exist. I would assume that's because your nebulous spiritual beliefs completely fall apart if you acknowledge that. Weirdly you don't argue for humanism, stoicism, epicureanism or any other philosophical belief systems that would achieve your stated goals, without the unprovable and extremely dubious spirituality.
"...I don’t attempt to provide any specifics after that..."
Of course not. Your argument would completely lose all pretense of rationality if you had to actually provide a positive claim. You make this out to be a defense but is a damning criticism. At no point do you try and prove your spirituality. If you want to treat Pascal's Wager seriously, tell me how Hell works without devolving into an explanation that involves magic. It is not a rational claim or argument if you interrogate it for more then five minutes.
You setup this article to make your spirituality seem like the only reasonable alternative by creating a false dichotomy between Musk's vapid Nihilism versus your extremely nebulous - you fill in the gaps - spirituality and spent no time considering any other possibilities.
Thank you for this profound, provocative and enlightening post!! While it’s painful to accept our limitations and to face the hard stop that death may be, the tonic is the beauty and comfort of communicating and sharing perspectives, showing love and living in the moment. You achieved that and much more here - for this, you have my deepest gratitude.
"While it’s painful to accept our limitations and to face the hard stop that death may be..."
Does the Author actually face the reality of Death or live in denial?
He says this:
"But again, even if we were sure that were the case, we still don’t know what happens when we die in this Universe (or whatever one we originally stem from)" And seems to dance around the issue repeatedly.
Daniel, since you understand the nature and reality of death, please do explain, with scientific proofs. Thanks
That seems a surprisingly dismissive response for someone who said:
"Please interact! Send some love and let me know if you appreciated or could improve upon my ideas by using one of the buttons below."
Perhaps you hadn't seen my more extensive response when you made this reply. I'll limit this response to your specific question. We know the brain dies without oxygen (https://www.ninds.nih.gov/health-information/disorders/cerebral-hypoxia).
If our consciousness is created by our brain (the effects of cutting off oxygen to the brain strongly suggest it is a required component in consciousness) and our brain stops functioning when we die, then nothing happens when we die.
Thanks for the response. Since you’d suggested I was “in denial” above, I thought i was just returning the tone. But all good.
Your logic regarding consciousness ceasing with death appears based on the unproven notion that consciousness is wholly created by the brain. But as I mentioned in the original piece, studying consciousness scientifically is fraught, near impossible. Because we cannot validate others experience or memory, any experiences of individuals claiming to return from death, or experience consciousness outside their bodies…which are extensive…are dismissed as unreliable anecdotes, dreams or fantasies. We have no proof where consciousness emanates, just the observation that consciousness no longer inhabits a body after its brain death. But this doesn’t prove the nature of consciousness, just a link between consciousness and body being mediated by the brain.
You seem to dismiss out of hand ideas where you cannot fathom a rational mechanism, referencing magic. Just remember, reality often works in crazy ways. Could you have fathomed the mechanisms behind photosynthesis? Or gravity? We humans have the senses to observe the results of these processes, so no one doubts their existence. Much of the point of this article was to point out where our senses/circumstances lack means to make scientific observations. consciousness at death…collapse of the wave function…good luck observing these things scientifically and reporting back.
One approachable possibility is the simulation. I nearly included in this piece some related musings from Descartes. He fathomed centuries ago that he might inhabit a reality wholly constructed by a demon testing his faith and character and obscuring the true nature of reality. After all, “i think therefore I am” is about the only thing Descartes was certain, he recognized explicitly that the senses are fallible.
This seems to me an early version of the same concept of “living in a simulation.” Perhaps Descartes fathomed this as mechanically as requiring “magic.” But also remember, sufficiently advanced technology appears as magic to less sophisticated observers. Today, we can rationally fathom an artificial reality being delivered like in the move The Matrix.
Perhaps my conceptions of “hell” are quite flexible. But fathom for a moment that after death in a simulated reality, some higher consciousness beings reviewed and judged your behavior in the simulation and then decided the circumstances of your next simulation. Any form of punishment metered out here might be considered “hell” or some form of “karmic retribution.” It need not take the traditional form of a fiery place with pointy tailed demons. it could take any form really. We simply have no means of knowing. Like Pascal believed.
I, for one, can fathom this scenario without the use of the word simulation or the idea of computer technology. Replace “higher consciousness beings “ with “devils and angels”, computer technology with a metaphysical technology humans don’t understand and viola…there’s your more traditional Christian conception of the afterlife.
Again, thanks for reading and commenting. Cheers
Your logic regarding consciousness ceasing with death appears based on the unproven notion that consciousness is wholly created by the brain"
Close but no. My concept is that the Brain is a key component of consciousness, which if you removed it from the equation, we wouldn't have consciousness. Which is demonstrated by my example. Explain to me why you lose consciousness, when you starve the brain of oxygen, if it the brain isn't required.
"You seem to dismiss out of hand ideas where you cannot fathom a rational mechanism, referencing magic. Just remember, reality often works in crazy ways. Could you have fathomed the mechanisms behind photosynthesis? Or gravity? We humans have the senses to observe the results of these processes, so no one doubts their existence."
Let me reverse this observation onto your position. You know human beings have observed and measured the effects of oxygen starvation on consciousness, so why do you doubt this process?
"One approachable possibility is the simulation. I nearly included in this piece some related musings from Descartes. He fathomed centuries ago that he might inhabit a reality wholly constructed by a demon testing his faith and character and obscuring the true nature of reality. After all, “i think therefore I am” is about the only thing Descartes was certain, he recognized explicitly that the senses are fallible."
This just an attempt to increase the gaps you are trying to fit your spiritualism into. Let's imagine we are in a simulation, what changes? Your argument is seemingly when we die, maybe we just wake up. This is a philosophy 101 scenario designed to make you ask, how do I know what I know. Yes, Descartes point that the only thing we can know with certainty is that we exist, is true in a sense. However you start to get pretty solipsistic at that point.
The only reason we are able to have this debate about whether we are in a simulation, is because the concept is elastic. Imagine you were arguing there was non-human intelligent life. Now imagine I had some method of searching the entire universe and proved that no other intelligent life existed. Then you say to me 'well what if we live in a simulation and other intelligent life just exists in a _different_ simulation.'
You moved to the simulation argument, not because you have meaningful reason to believe a simulation exists but because it allows you to believe other things that don't have meaningful evidence.
"I, for one, can fathom this scenario without the use of the word simulation or the idea of computer technology. Replace “higher consciousness beings “ with “devils and angels”, computer technology with a metaphysical technology humans don’t understand and viola…there’s your more traditional Christian conception of the afterlife."
Ok, but do we have any reason to actually believe that?
Comedian Tim Minchin has a good riff on Confirmation Bias, which has come to my mind a couple of times while debating with you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1juPBoxBdc
Thanks again for responding Daniel! You have interesting ideas and a sharp mind. I’ve taken some of your arguments and observations to help improve my organization and clarity- so thank you for helping me improve this. But I also find it amusing you think I’m riddled with conformation bias when I am adamant I don’t know the answers to confirm and instead insist on respect for uncertainty. This seems like the opposite of confirmation bias to me. Adamant refusal to be biased and fill in a gap with assumptions seems more fitting. I’d perhaps consider applying this label to your arguments which seem to insist on confirming widely assumed, unproven conditions (that cannot be confirmed as far as I can tell.)
It seems like this pattern has emerged where you are seeking pieces of evidence to confirm what I’ve mentioned are some of the possibilities of what might occur. But thats the thing - I’m saying that these are only possibilities to consider once you’ve accepted the uncertainty. I am calling out that our typical means of knowledge verification - via scientific method - fails here. And so perhaps its wise to stop trying to fit a square peg in a round hole and instead explore other strategies.
Re: brain oxygen and consciousness - I keep repeating how studying consciousness is fraught as one cannot climb inside another’s mind. But you don’t seem to buy this and instead seem to believe one can study consciousness at death from the outside. I pointed out that from that perspective, one only proves body-consciousness connection being mediated by the brain.
You seem to dismiss that consciousness could leave a body. I don’t understand why - you seem to reference a lack of evidence, but many have experienced their consciousness leaving their body and having extensive out of body experience. I guess because this evidence is not scientific in nature you’ve dismissed it totally. This is exactly the problem with using scientific method to try to get answers it cannot possibly - its the whole point of my piece! I find this thinking to be unwise, misguided and counterproductive to pursuit of knowledge, a road block that stops inquiry with assumption. Dogma.
I am willing to consider reports of such experience are commonly experienced artifacts of brain stress or something similar, but I’m also willing to consider its possible some are due to consciousness leaving the body.
Note than even if if 99% of people had similar out of body experiences, it would still appear unscientific to the remaining 1% right?
I lean on ‘simulations’ because mechanistically, this is easier to conceptualize and explain, especially to those resistant to any possibility but “hard stop at death.” You asked for an example of how hell could exist without “magic” - the simulation example demonstrates such, and perhaps helps one open up one’s imagination to possibilities available due to advanced tech that might seem the realm of “magic” otherwise.
I concur that the existence of simulations wouldn’t change anything from a metaphysical perspective- that uncertainty around mortality remains regardless. I attempted to acknowledge this in the original piece with “But again, even if we were sure that were the case, we still don’t know what happens when we die in this Universe (or whatever one we originally stem from).”
I don’t insist you should believe any conception of reality/mortality …or that any of these are likely…. or the most likely scenario, like the Christian conception. Just that perhaps one should not dismiss these possibilities dogmatically. I don’t find the Christian conception of the afterlife to be particularly likely, btw. I find the ‘hard stop’ to be most likely, a possibility we must contend with. But I find also find validity in a ton of spiritual ideas from cultures all over the world.
Again, even if we calculate the chances to be near zero, the game theory I see is that the potential implications are so monumental, some possibilities still must be respected.
This uncertainty surrounding mortality is an essential part of the human condition as far as I can tell. It should engender humility and respect for diverse perspectives and conceptions imo. We are all just co-traveling an uncertain universe with uncertain rules and an uncertain end point - pretending to have
more answers than we do is hubristic and may be harmful if taken to extremes, without any respect for other possibilities. The assumption that our existence is as short and meaningless as imaginable due to limitations of the scientific method is simply irrational - respect for wider possibilities and diverse spiritual perspectives is warranted given the uncertainty and unsuitability for scientific study.
Please check out my piece I recently reposted on comparative mythology pioneer Joseph Campbell as a spiritual/moral Superman. I contend he reframed Nietzsche‘s rationalization that God is dead, in a manner that philosophically rationalized PostModernism. It is not God that Galileo killed - its religious dogma and conceptions regarding the “supernatural”
https://radmod.substack.com/p/thus-answered-joseph-campbell?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
This article is an elaborate god of the gaps argument. No matter how complex or floral the language it rests on two key assumptions:
1) The proponent believes they can know all possible scientific explanations and rule them out.
2) The proponent, having ruled out all scientific explanations, argues they can reach meaningful and falsifiable conclusions without using the scientific method.
For example:
""But these observations do not get us any closer to answering our most fundamental spiritual questions: what happened before the big bang and how did it all get there?"
Why is that fundamental? The assumed answer seems to be that there is a God that meaningfully interferes post the big bang. What evidence do we have of this? If this being doesn't actively interfere (i.e. a deistic God) what difference would there be between that and a non-existent God?
"Or is there some continuation, some afterlife or reincarnation?"
This a question science has answered. The answer is no. Lets do a hypothetical, you wrap your arms around my throat and squeeze hard enough that oxygen stops flowing to my brain. What happens if you do that for long enough? I lose conscious. Crucially, I would lose conscious _before_ dying. Whilst that doesn't prove the brain is entirely responsible for consciousness, it does demonstrate that the brain is essential for consciousness. Death is the brain ceasing to function, ergo death is the end of our consciousness.
This also renders Pascal's Wager meaningless but lets assume that there is someone judging us (despite, as far as I am aware, there being no evidence for this). Even then Pascal's Wager doesn't hold water. Pascal's Wager only makes sense if a) There is one knowable God or set of Gods and b) We can know what that being wants from us. There are thousands of religions with conflicting beliefs and practices. Adhering to any specific religion could anger this God by committing Blasphemy (Oops, you lost the wager because you picked the wrong religion). Maybe this God values rationality and anyone who believed in a God, without reason, would be viewed by this God as irrational and unworthy (Oops, you lost the wager because God was testing you by creating a universe that should have lead you to the opposite conclusion).
You make this point: "That is, demonstrate kindness and compassion to Humankind present and future; work to provide and care for oneself, loved ones, guests and occasionally others in need when possible; address conflicts as peacefully and cooperatively as possible. Approach this enthusiastically and passionately even, if you can conjure it. Why not?"
Why do you seem to assume that your God has values that match your own? The Ancient Greeks often portrayed Gods behaving like Humans (having sex, fighting, getting jealous etc.) Why? Probably because as human beings, they had difficulty envisioning beings who were extremely powerful, extremely long living and would have had massively different experiences and outlooks to human beings. If this God had your values and is powerful enough to create the universe, why do genocides, diseases and natural disasters occur? (Free will does not explain diseases, particularly genetic ones) If you had the ability to stop those things, wouldn't you?
"Whether or not we are compelled to have faith in free will or God viscerally, it is rational and logical to choose to have such faith. Or at least to try. Our choices are pretty binary in these matters." You seem to do this often in the article. That is one of many subtle but noticeable false dichotomies. How about using Skepticism as the founding of a complex and empathetic morality? By understanding that there is no moral law giver, no objective morality, one almost necessarily needs to question how to make moral decisions.
This can (though obviously not always) lead to Humanism or Utilitarianism. By predicating morality on a principle of do the least harm and the most good, one can continue to try and improve, rather than settling for dogma or just interpreting scripture to reinforce your existing beliefs.
I found this section particularly damning of your logical process:
"If there is no God and everything is so mechanical and explainable by formulae and number crunching, then how could we possibly have free will either? Aren’t we just then watching a movie with some extra sensations and an internal monologue? Sorry - that seems so _unappealing_ and not particularly rational either."
Something being unappealing has no influence on its rationality or truth. It is also another example of those subtle false dichotomies. Why would having an all powerful creator being be more conducive to free will? Would there be any real way to do something this creator being didn't want us to do? Just because there wouldn't be specific programming in the back ground of such a universe, doesn't mean it would be any different in practice.
Lets assume the universe doesn't have a God. Why would that prevent us having goodwill? Do you have any reason to gain say this hypothetical, other than the fact you don't like it? If you don't, that is just an appeal to consequences fallacy something that would be "...irrational...".
"These provide framework over the gaping voids science can never fill. They help us build solid, moral-spiritual structure that might otherwise be filled by the wobbly, flavor-of-the-moment garbage emanating from the impulses and self-interests of nihilism." This is another false dichotomy. Your assumption appears to a moron and racist's (Elon Musk) view of nihilism versus spirituality. You also seem to assume science has nothing to say on these topics.
Psychology explains a lot about how and why people make decisions (including things like confirmation bias). It explains why people benefit from religion (community, routine, a purpose) but in doing so it demonstrates that religion doesn't offer anything that can't be found else where. It doesn't require a belief in God for me to find meaning from my family, DnD and sport. It also doesn't require me to be a member of a church to have empathy for racially oppressed minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals, people who are physically or mentally ill, victims of dictators and war. It just takes empathy, careful assessment of any belief, along with the willingness to accept that I will be wrong (and have been) sometimes.
I appreciate your thoughtful comments Daniel. Thank you for reading and responding although I think you’d find your two assumptions about my logic are not accurate. Obviously we disagree on some points, although probably less than you might think.
Point taken on the unappealing nature of determinism being insignificant to the nature of reality. I guess my point is that if there is not a rational answer to certain questions (as Pascal recognized), and we just can never know for certain an answer, then perhaps it is rational to choose an answer that is respectful of the uncertainty and all the downstream consequences. Hell or karmic retribution might not exist of course, but science has not disproven these either. We must live our lives without a clear answer. ‘Ed’s wager’ mentioned here is simply to accept the uncertainty, and then it becomes clear that acting with fundamental decency is the sensible, rational thing to do given that uncertainty.
I think you have taken my statements to be more certain than intended - much of my point is … we as humans tend to think we understand our universe better than we do. I am a scientist with tons of respect for the scientific method and all it has validated for us. But I also recognize that we humans continue answering questions with scientific inquiry, and rather than putting anything to bed, the new discoveries tend to bring new mysteries rather than secure answers to these most fundamental questions.
My conception of God is less personal and more conceptual - a metaphor for the incomprehensible and unknowable more than a supernatural, omnipotent being. I’d be happy to repost my article re Joseph Campbell to more fully explain that position. I’m also not intending to promote churchgoing or any specific religion, rather respect for soulful truth-seeking and sharing of meaning, respect for the voids science cannot answer or has not yet answered. I don’t think this sort of searching/sharing needs to happen in church or with practice of any religion. Indeed, the strict dogma of much religious practice prohibits this sort of exchange, unfortunately. But so do dogmatic beliefs about science. The arts seem to foster and embody this exchange as much as anything else imo. I had originally included this dope modern dance video as an example of where I have found meaning, where love becomes an answer (or at least a consolation prize) to existential dread, seems to speak to some of the issues mentioned here:
https://youtu.be/2wt15g9R07o?feature=shared
This article seeks to dispel dogmatic positions regarding total reliance on materialism… and scientific inquiry to dig into it…as the only forms of legitimate truth and truth seeking. To foster respect for the more uncertain immaterial, philosophical and spiritual that our modern society tends to discount.
Science just cannot answer certain fundamental questions. This “measurement problem” in particle physics gets to the heart of the issue - we will simply never be able to observe certain aspects of reality and therefore scientific method is not going to give satisfying answers. There has been a debate raging in physics for a century - is it scientific to even posit theories (like Many Worlds theory) that cannot be tested? Or is that the realm of philosophy and religion? Would reality “care” if it took a form that humans cannot test with science? I certainly don’t believe so. Even Einstein seems to have posited theories that appear untestable - does that make him an irrational mystic rather than a scientist?
See:
https://youtu.be/mFsVuoR1EJI?feature=shared
I disagree about death and consciousness. Scientific method has not come close to providing clear answers on these issues. See the below video regarding scientific opinions on consciousness, which are obviously unproven and controversial, but also obviously not settled either.
https://youtu.be/X4wvSmqefyc?feature=shared
The nature of consciousness is not well understood scientifically - so understanding what occurs to it at death is also not understood. There are two common theories, the one you suggest regarding consciousness wholly stemming from brain activity, and another where the brain is more like an antenna that perhaps modulates and focuses consciousness. I tend to think the former is disproven because too-small entities (like some single cell organisms and cells) clearly display consciousness for it to be wholly created by brain function. The later leaves open the possibility that consciousness is eternal or at least outlasts our body. I don’t pretend to have all the answers!
https://bigthink.com/the-well/intelligence-can-cells-think/
my writing here was not to lead you to believe any sort of specific dogmatic belief or any conception of God, but rather to dispel dogmatic beliefs, religious or scientific. To have respect for the uncertainty of our mortality and to incorporate that into morality. My thinking is that exactly because we don’t know, we therefore must proceed with utmost caution and respect for our souls and others. Science does not and cannot answer so many most important fundamental questions. So maybe its better we look elsewhere for answers to those questions. I don’t attempt to provide any specifics after that, just to promote respect for this uncertainty and for search for truth and meaning (atheist, theist or agnostic).
Cheers, again thanks for reading and commenting!!!
"Point taken on the unappealing nature of determinism being insignificant to the nature of reality".
Thank you for acknowledging that.
"I guess my point is that if there is not a rational answer to certain questions (as Pascal recognized..."
He didn't recognize that. He claimed it. I think you need to be more critical of your choice of language and the assumptions implied by those choices. He makes a claim that you agree with and therefore he is simply recognizing an inarguable truth. I already disputed his claim in the comment you were replying to. This comes across as an inability to tackle these ideas from a neutral position. An inability to honestly interrogate your assumptions.
"and we just can never know for certain an answer, then perhaps it is rational to choose an answer that is respectful of the uncertainty and all the downstream consequences."
This a misleading portrayal of what you are doing. How can you rationally reach a conclusion that is unfalsifiable?
"Hell or karmic retribution might not exist of course, but science has not disproven these either. We must live our lives without a clear answer."
Neither exist. How could hell exist? You know without magic? Because in the same paragraph you used the term rational. Which you clearly think you are being but just think about what you are claiming. 1) We have no evidence for Hell 2) Hell might exist. Therefore we should follow your morality. Why? You don't know if hell exists and you have no claim to objective morality. There are absolutely people in history who have made this argument, who had no problem with slavery. This is because morality changes over time (or our understanding of it improves but I wouldn't assume it is a straight line thing). How do you know what is moral? You don't know that your definition of being nice would see you avoid hell.
You know what would be a better reason to be nice? Not wanting harm other people. You know what that doesn't require? Placing a wager on the non-existent chance that Hell exists.
"Ed’s wager’ mentioned here is simply to accept the uncertainty"
That's the problem. You go from we don't know all the answers, to I know the answer, even though my answer is completely detached from reality. It is just an excuse for you to turnoff the rational part of your brain.
"I tend to think the former is disproven because too-small entities (like some single cell organisms and cells) clearly display consciousness for it to be wholly created by brain function. The later leaves open the possibility that consciousness is eternal or at least outlasts our body. I don’t pretend to have all the answers!
https://bigthink.com/the-well/intelligence-can-cells-think/"
That video is a man (albeit a well credentialed one) conflating an unknown ability to survive in an unexpected chemical environment, with intelligence. Those are not the same thing and nothing about that argument refutes the fact that brain stops functioning without oxygen and our consciousness measurably goes with it. Let's assume your analogy of our body being antennae holds. How? Where are the other scientists making this claim (the ones not selling a self help book)?
"https://youtu.be/X4wvSmqefyc?feature=shared"
I explained an incredibly simple example of how mechanically you can demonstrate consciousness is caused or definitely relies on the brain. You answered with I think the brain is an antenna. Yet you as a self proclaimed scientist didn't cite a scientific paper making this very serious scientific claim, you cited a YouTube video advertising a self help book.
"therefore must proceed with utmost caution and respect for our souls"
What is a soul and how do you know it exists?
"Science does not and cannot answer so many most important fundamental questions."
And yet you tried to provide a scientific answer to my claim that without the brain your consciousness doesn't exist. I would assume that's because your nebulous spiritual beliefs completely fall apart if you acknowledge that. Weirdly you don't argue for humanism, stoicism, epicureanism or any other philosophical belief systems that would achieve your stated goals, without the unprovable and extremely dubious spirituality.
"...I don’t attempt to provide any specifics after that..."
Of course not. Your argument would completely lose all pretense of rationality if you had to actually provide a positive claim. You make this out to be a defense but is a damning criticism. At no point do you try and prove your spirituality. If you want to treat Pascal's Wager seriously, tell me how Hell works without devolving into an explanation that involves magic. It is not a rational claim or argument if you interrogate it for more then five minutes.
You setup this article to make your spirituality seem like the only reasonable alternative by creating a false dichotomy between Musk's vapid Nihilism versus your extremely nebulous - you fill in the gaps - spirituality and spent no time considering any other possibilities.