Monday, 9 August 2010

Do near-death experiences mean we have immortal life?

I thought this article I found online was so interesting. I have a friend who reads books about near-death experiences and thinks people know things they shouldn't know and can see people who are dead.

Why Near-Death Experiences Are a Flimsy Justification for the Idea That We Have Immortal Souls

The evidence supporting the 'independent soul' explanation is flimsy at best. It is unsubstantiated. It comes largely from personal anecdotes. It is internally inconsistent.

Most arguments for spiritual belief that I encounter are so bad, they don't even count as arguments. But some believers in religion or spirituality do try to make real arguments for their beliefs, and try to defend them with evidence and logic. This evidence and logic are never very good... but they are sincere attempts to engage with reality instead of ignoring it. So I want to do these arguments the honor of taking them seriously... and pointing out how they're completely mistaken.

Here's the argument being made. Sometimes, when people are near death, they have weird experiences: experiences that seem like their consciousness is leaving their body. These experiences are rare -- even those who believe in the soul acknowledge that NDE's only happen to a small proportion of people near death -- but they happen. And there are some reports that people having these experiences see things they couldn't have known were there. These experiences can only be explained -- so the argument goes -- by a soul, separate from the brain, that departs from the brain when it's near death, and returns to it when death is staved off.

That's the argument.

So here's the problem.

There's this phenomenon -- consciousness.

There are essentially two ways to explain it. Either it's a physical, biological product of the brain -- or it has a component other than brain function: a soul that is separate from the brain, and that survives when the brain dies.

And there are two sets of evidence supporting these two explanations.

The evidence supporting the "biological product of the brain" explanation comes from rigorously-gathered, carefully-tested, thoroughly cross-checked, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, replicated, peer-reviewed research. An enormous mountain of research. A mountain of research that is growing more mountainous every day.

I cannot emphasize this enough. Read any current book on neurology or neuropsychology... or at least, any current book on neurology or neuropsychology that isn't written by a woo believer with an axe to grind who's cherry-picking the data. Read Oliver Sacks, V.S. Ramachandran, Steven Pinker. We are getting closer to understanding consciousness every day. The sciences of neurology and neuropsychology are, it is true, very much in their infancy... but they are advancing by astonishing leaps and bounds, even as we speak. And what they are finding, consistently, thoroughly, across the board, is that, whatever consciousness is, it is intimately and inextricably linked to the brain.

Changes in the brain result in changes in consciousness -- changes sometimes so drastic that they render a person's personality entirely unrecognizable. Changes in consciousness can be seen, using magnetic resonance imagery, as changes in the brain. This is the increasingly clear conclusion of the science: Consciousness is a product of the brain. Period.

6 comments:

Tim Trent said...

I know things I shouldn't know. Does that mean I'm dead?

Elizabeth said...

Tim, the article didn't include EAVESDROPPING to know things you shouldn't know.

Steve Borthwick said...

If conciousness is separate from the brain then it would be immune from the altering effects of chemical stimulants in our blood, it isn't (as the hangover I had on Sunday morning proves to me);

Yet Another Anonymous said...

The writer of this article makes definitive statements about the nature of consciousness, "whatever that is".

I'm not impressed. Why does it follow that a soul, if such a thing exists, must be aware?

If consciousness is "inextricably linked to the brain", then where does it go in the unconsciousness of sleep, and why does it come back?

Has the author somehow determined that all moments of what we call time don't exist simultaneously? Because if all moments do exist simultaneously, then all of us are in fact immortal.

If the universe is infinite in all respects it is entirely possible that each of us will be again. Heck, we might have already been before. In light of so many questions I think this author is being a bit hasty. Consciousness, absent awareness, may be quite a lot different than the narrow idea being defamed in this article.

Steve Borthwick said...

Anon, that's a bit like saying, where do my photo's go when I switch my PC off, and why do they come back again?

Anyway, why does conciousness have to go anywhere when you sleep; i.e. have you never had a dream?

The author is only being hasty if the evidence he refers to doesn't exist, but it does, so...

Who says the universe is infinite? posing a random (unrelated) question is not the same as having evidence indicating an answer; these two things don't have equal weight.

The number of unrelated questions one might ask is probably infinite, this doesn't really add any value though, it's evidence of the type in the publications that he refers to that counts.

Anonymous said...

this post is very usefull thx!