No, there’s not. In order to believe otherwise, you would have to be willing to radically alter our fundamental understanding of physics on the basis of almost no evidence. Which I’m not willing to do. But others feel differently! So we’re going to have a debate about it tonight — to be live-streamed, see below.
This is an Intelligence Squared debate, which is a series of Oxford-style formal debates that are held around the world, often with quite impressive participants. Four people, two on each side of a resolution. Seven-minute opening statements, round-table discussion, then two-minute closing statements. No slides or other visual aids; just bare-knuckle combat in the gladiatorial arena of ideas.
The resolution simply reads “Death Is Not Final,” and it will be affirmed by Eben Alexander and Raymond Moody, both of whom have written best-selling books along these lines. Alexander, in particular, is a neurosurgeon who had a near-death experience and now claims to have proof of the existence of Heaven. (For a skeptical take on Alexander, see this Esquire profile.) I’ll be negating the resolution, along with my partner Steven Novella. Steve is a practicing neuroscientist who is also active in the skeptic movement, blogging at Neurologica and leading the Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe podcast.
Festivities begin at 6:45pm Eastern Time. It will be broadcast on various NPR stations around the US, but you should also be able to see it live-streamed right here:
If you can’t catch the live-stream but still want to watch, I presume it will go on YouTube eventually, but I don’t know for sure.
To get a feeling for how an Intelligence Squared debate goes, you might check out Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens persuading a large group of people that the Catholic Church has harmed the world.
pepitoGrillo –
You’ve confused, among many other things, dark matter with dark energy. It is not “a crazy dark matter,” as you claim above, that accounts for the accelerating expansion of the universe; it is dark energy. The gravity of dark matter’s mass keeps the large structure of the cosmos from flying apart, and accounts for the unexpected, but observed, rotational speeds of spiral galaxies.
If there as life after death then there are many questions to be answered. But are the PRO people ready and able to answer them? Just believing in an after life is not enough. One has to consider the consequences.
Some questions for the pro after life people:
-what is the population of this supernatural world?
-how is life sustained there for so many billions of people?
-is is carbon based life or something else?
-are laws of physics valid there?
-what is the purpose of having 2 worlds? Why not 3, 4, or infinite number?
-why can’t we communicate between these worlds? And only quacks do?
-is the other world timeless? spaceless? how would life be sustained w/out space and time?
….
The PRO people have their work cut out for them. They need an equivalent of NASA to investigate this other world.
It has become clear that the debate is under the heading of religion and philosophy….also, that to be called a materialist, might offend some or not, so I hope to explain that without such an offense(hidden comments by material counts:) being taken. I might myself have been called a materialist seeing the need for reductionism. This is so as to compile what energy may be described as, in a configuration space?
Can cosmology then, be described without reductionism so as to show what the universe is doing? That is a question.
After Life Debate-Materialism and Religion
Such debates should encourage further debate, and I hope to do that, so thanks to the producers of the event and thanks to Sean.
Best,
Admittedly, Sean did very well in the debate and won .However, I have to say that, this may be because, the other side consisting of a neurosurgeon and a neuroscientist did not know much modern physics. If they knew they would have pointed out that modern physics when you think in terms of our everyday notions is not all that *rational and logical*!! Mathematics works very well and agreement with experiments is superb. However ideas of quantum theory, relativity and modern cosmology are irrational in terms of our intuition to say the least. There are endless debates for some 90 years about interpretation of quantum mechanics. One talks about world consisting of fuzzy wavelike objects which do not have any properties until you measure them, universe of size smaller than proton expanding by a factor of e^80 in 10^ (-36) sec, universe branching every time you make measurement, then when it comes to discussion of religious ideas you demand rationality in terms of our everyday notion!! As Sean admits, energy is not conserved in expanding universe. There is a big debate about what happens to the information. In my opinion science has not proved that there could not be some world beyond our sense perceptions. You can confuse people who do not know modern physics but not the people who know it!
I see this debate with 3 sides:
– atheist: who disbelieve in any traditional form of religion using their best understanding of the sciences (many of which who poorly understand the probablistic and agnostic nature of science therefore are simply bias…too many unkown unknowns to be absolute)
– religious: who are bias in their beliefs due to a variety of reasons (just like many atheists) and view the scientific research results through that biased lense.
– agnostic: the least understood in this polarized debate. neither the atheist or religious like the agnostic arguments (one will view it too scientific and the other too religious). the scientific agnostic passes no absolute conclusions given the many unknowns existing in the fundamental sciences, and is typically aware of emeging non-linear sciences involving complexity too pass any conclusions. the modern agnostic scientist benchmarks our understand if science on whether natural phenomenon can be simulated on a computer using all our midern knowledge, like simulating intelligent like using only physics…and they know it has never been done because there are problems yet still existing in our full understanding of nature.
From a philosophical point of view how might a Philosopher of Science think about it? I wonder.
Moody projected the question of the use of logic ad reason…..and underneath the current of this first part of the debate(36:58) it has got me thinking about how to approach this in a responsible way. Again, I am calling forth the David Albert Conversation on the Blogging Heads. See above hidden comment.
If you are a scientist and a philosopher, might you help here? The Mind/Body Problem.
Death is not Final?
Best,
I don’t think Sean is wasting his time with this stuff, we do need articulate scientifically literate (and reasonably minded!) people to make the case in these popular debates otherwise the debate gets monopolised by charismatic cranks with all kinds of silly ideas.
I think it was way too easy to make the scientific case here though, Alexander and Moody needed to make the case that science on its own can not answer the question, Moody did try to argue this but in a not very compelling way, and Alexander just repeated in rather simple statements that the scientists can’t explain how consciousness arises from brain processes. Novella was able to give an easy counter argument that we don’t know exactly how gravity arises either but no one believes supernatural causes are required. However that’s not a satisfying argument imho since we do have some good ideas how gravity might emerge at a fundamental level whereas we have no really sensible idea how a brain processes might be responsible for conscious awareness.
So the Alexander/Moody side of the debate should have been allowed to argue that “Science can not tell us if Death is Final” – rather than looking silly by talking about subjective experiences and anecdotes of near death experiences. Carroll and Novella could still have made the same arguments, but they would have a harder time convincing the public that today’s science can answer these questions with great confidence.
Obviously however, Death is final.
ps I may have been unfair to Susan Blackmore above, I wasn’t aware she had undergone a conversion in her later career from her earlier strange beliefs in the paranormal and religion
James…”rather than looking silly by talking about subjective experiences and anecdotes of near death experiences”.
You clearly don’t know of the cases where patients report detailed operating room procedures. Also the “shared accounts” were completely ignored by the “against the motion” side. Here’s a good academic science article that overviews these issues, inc. shared cases, and more…
http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00209/full
Excellent references as well.
Near death experience is a shock reaction. Where “shock” (as I use it here) is any trauma that derails the collective brain functions we refer to as real-time consciousness. In other words, you’re out of it. I know because I had one. When I was 17 years old I was shot by a good friend with a 12 gauge shotgun, no. 6 pellets, at about 35 yards. It was a hunting accident. The pellets had enough energy to embed in my skull but not continue on and penetrate into my brain. I was knocked down by the blast and for a few moments, and maybe for more than a few moments, I had the classic near death experience.
Very pleasant. No pain. No fear. A warm and welcoming distant light with little or no peripheral vision. And a disembodied sense that I was looking down on the scene of me lying there. After a few moments lying there I regained my grip on real-time real-life and got up, told my friend that he shot me, and we walked home together. My friend was far more anxious than I was. I tried to calm him down, he would hear none of it. I had wool gloves on and when I got up and put my hands to my face I smeared the blood all over my face. It looked far worse than the real underlying tissue damage.
Lucky for me one of the best cosmetic surgeons in the world was on call at the Albany Medical Center emergency room. He dug out all the pellets in my face and sewed me up pretty good. This happened about 1965.
NDEs happen in your head. Period. They are not real beyond the confines of your skull. They are a subjective experience. Like joy. Or sadness. Or the utter contempt I feel for people who claim otherwise just to make a buck.
“In order to believe otherwise, you would have to be willing to radically alter our fundamental understanding of physics on the basis of almost no evidence. ” – physicist Henry Stapp has argued differently: http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/Compatibility.pdf
he has argued that Quantum interactive dualism is an alternative to materialism: http://exordio.qfb.umich.mx/archivos%20pdf%20de%20trabajo%20umsnh/aphilosofia/QID%20muy%20bueno.pdf
There is internet criticism of him not published in a journal, that is refuted here: http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/RTS.doc
He has argued against the “idea that the brain is made up entirely of material particles and fields, and that all causal mechanisms relevant to neuroscience can therefore be formulated solely in terms of properties of these elements.” in an article “Quantum physics in neuroscience and psychology: a neurophysical model of mind–brain interaction”: http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/PTRS.pdf
Unlike others who make such appeals, he knows what he is talking about.
Saul of Tarsus – St. Paul, intellectual founder of the Catholic Church – was remarkable for when he lived in this respect: on the one hand, not just able to read & write – alone rare for that time – but also deeply read – one feels, stuck – in a few narrow areas, including religious dogma & exotica; while, on the other hand – notably, during his early adult & most productive writing years – geographically isolated from discussion with other literate, reading humans, indeed from city life.
Saul didn’t live during the times Jesus Christ is supposed to have lived. Thus, necessarily, many of his fundamental conceptions about Jesus were based on the writings of others, & the rest based on conjecture – much of it Saul’s own. The latter are largely fantastical & conflict with what we know about how this universe works. The former were not themselves written contemporaneously with the events described, so are hearsay. Hearsay is such a base sort of near-testimony that the courts of western developed nations will not credit it with any weight whatsoever, in the absence of other evidence that is either independent, or physical in nature, or both, and that in any event is itself verified reliable, &, even then, only to the extent that other evidence verifies there to be no other reasonably possible explanation.
Say today, an acclaimed, capable, famous writer of fiction, such as Hilary Martel, were to write a novel from the point of view of Thomas Cromwell, set in the times of King Henry VIII of England. There have been not just a few histories, novels & “historical novels” written about or involving Thomas Cromwell, but likely none as skillful & entertaining as Martel’s “Wolf Hall” & “Bring Out The Bodies” (with a third, at least, to come.), &, as importantly, certainly none which have sold or been read as much or widely as hers, or so favorably reviewed.
Now consider: what if Martel were not merely one writer among tens of thousands (just in English; there may be tens of millions of human authors, or a multiple of that considering the Internet), and not merely the latest in a line of authors on Thomas Cromwell, but by far the most comprehensive, vivid & organized, and also one of a tiny minority of literate, read humans, in a great sea of illiterate, unread, largely ignorant, easily-gulled humans. Would not an opinion form around her work on Thomas Cromwell that it was “authoritative”?
Or take J.K. Rowling & her Harry Potter stories …
(Nothing in this comment aims to diminish the reputation of either Ms. Martel or Ms. Rowling, or the value of their fictions.)
This helps us to understand the Lancet NDE data that was misrepresented by Michael Shermer in his article “The Demon Haunted Brain” – according to the lead author of that Lancet study: http://www.nderf.org/NDERF/Research/vonlommel_skeptic_response.htm
see, for more from the author of that study, refuting Ketamine false analogies, etc., the following: http://www.merkawah.nl/public_html/images/stories/near-death%20experience%20consciousness%20and%20the%20brain%20volledig.pdf
van Lommel, the author, further addresses this in a 2013 Journal of Consciousness Studies article ( van lommel, P. (2013). Non-local consciousness: A concept based on scientific research on near-death experiences during cardiac arrest. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 20, 7-48.) – search “hallucination” in it for some important revelations: http://pimvanlommel.nl/files/Nonlocal-Consciousness-article-JCS-2013.pdf
See also Greyson’s comment on “Surge of neurophysiological activity in the dying brain”: http://www.medicine.virginia.edu/clinical/departments/psychiatry/sections/cspp/dops/greyson-publications/NDE71surge-PNAS.pdf
Further references can be found here – it is not my intention to post all of them: http://www.medicine.virginia.edu/clinical/departments/psychiatry/sections/cspp/dops/publications-page#NDEarticles
I would however, like to highlight a few items:
Interesting positive evidence comes in the form of the following – K. Ring and S. Cooper, “Near-Death and Out-of-Body Experiences in the Blind: A Study of Apparent Eyeless Vision,” Journal of Near-Death Studies 16 (1998): 101-47: http://newdualism.org/nde-papers/Ring/Ring-Journal%20of%20Near-Death%20Studies_1997-16-101-147.pdf
There are also a couple of stories unrelated to NDE that challenge the idea that consciousness is only the product of brain activity:
1) The following article on a man acquiring previously non-existent artistic talents after a stroke, supporting the filter model of consciousness: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1190002/Masterstroke-Man-draw-stickmen-wakes-life-saving-brain-surgery–artist.html
2) Here is a New Scientist story about a man with an almost non-existent brain, who nevertheless had a normal life: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12301-man-with-tiny-brain-shocks-doctors.html
all of this gives support to the filter model of consciousness (held by William James, etc).
kashyap Vasavada – I’m not a physician myself, but I’ve worked with them, for & against, for almost four decades. It’s my impression that the level of coincidence of wisdom, even general knowledge, with a medical eduction, is not materially higher than the level of coincidence of those same things in automobile mechanics. Indeed, it’s been my experience that the most financially successful physicians are as often con artists & grifters as there are con artists & grifters in the general population; the one saving grace is that so many of the most outrageously unwise enter public life, where their certificates & degrees are more easily marketable.
Ben S – Per your two posts on NDEs, I note in passing that there don’t seem to be any posts on this thread of someone having experienced an NDE & rejecting it as a mere dream or hallucination. I myself have had two (2) NDEs, each remarkably detailed & vivid. The first was in recovery shortly after extensive & invasive surgery, during which I was deeply medicated; for many years after, I was convinced that I’d come out of a (detailed, vivid) nightmare & run out of the recovery room into a hospital hall, somehow overlooking that the impossibility of having dragged behind me, completely intact & without causing any damage to them or injury to myself, several hundreds of pounds of medical equipment intimately attached variously throughout my body. Even now, full well knowing the memory is complete balls, the ‘experience’ of it remains intact – highly detailed & emotionally compelling.
I realize many people have trouble not defaulting to the supernatural for things that defy understanding by them or their physicians. The fact they have such trouble simply means they lack the sort of wisdom Isaac Newton himself displayed, when, on realizing the technologies of his time weren’t sufficient to delve further into the very large & the very small, he declined to speculate further in either direction, simply accepting that the time for doing that would come in years beyond his lifespan. It’s in our genetic programming to seek explanations, & the more ignorant we are, the less easy is the programming resisted.
A very weak point of Sean’s argument was when he dared the spirits/ghosts in the room to move his glass of water.
He barely gave them 2 seconds to organise themselves. When I’ve seen this in the movies it always takes longer than that, with quite a lot of suspense before the glass finally moves.
@Avattoir: No, No No! I did not say “not knowing modern physics” in a derogatory sense. Most physicians work hard and provide good service to society. They make more than an average person, but they deserve it. Besides, you cannot expect everyone to know everything. How many physicists understand neuroscience and consciousness? What I was saying was that this was a distinct disadvantage against Sean who is both a good physicist and a good debater. As a good debater he would not bring up weak points of his argument!! I am sure very few people in the audience had college level modern physics to know this. As a retired physics professor, I would have refuted Sean’s arguments that this stuff is against known laws of physics! It is not. Physics has limitations as I pointed out in my comment, which, as expected, was voted down!! Majority of the readers would not want anyone to criticize Sean!
Psychological nativism- see Modularity
A question then about what Meno knew? Where are memories stored in the brain? DNA and memory?
Activation of the Record of Human Experience
Already up on YouTube: http://youtu.be/h0YtL5eiBYw
My instant response to this question is similar, no we shouldn’t expect any type of life after death.
However, PepitoGrillo has mentioned something which I don’t think can be dismissed easily, which is Bostrom’s Simulation Argument. I think it’s interesting and it has become a bit more difficult for me to instanteously dismiss life after death.
Of course the second post can be dismissed outright though. The one with the goddy-stuff.
This debate was one of many videos refusing to play for me over the last few days. It seems Google will not let anyone view a video (or its page) when the ad-server is down.
If anyone is having this problem, it can be bypassed by opting out of targeted ads (on by default) in the settings page for your YouTube account.
DNA and Memory- Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram. The holographic importance of the image in the DNA?
Pingback: Afterlife Aftermath | Sean Carroll
Most debates are interesting but almost never persuade one to change his or her opinion. Scientific proof of an afterlife is impossible. To prove the supernatural by natural means is beyond the means of Physics or any other scientific discipline. Science is the study of nature and that which is above the natural, Super Nature, is far, far, beyond it. Anyway those of you who don’t believe won’t have a choice when you die, so tough teddy bears to you. I hope you all have a happy death, I really do. You will surely be surprised, you really will be. Take this from one who met Christ face to face and heart to heart. He lives inside you, at the very center of your being and Loves each of you, believer and unbeliever.