True or false

One of the standard arguments to come up whenever there's an evidence-based discussion of life after death is the so-called transmission theory, first proposed by William James, which views the brain as a receiver of the "signal" of consciousness (not an actual electromagnetic signal — it's a metaphor). The transmission theory stands in opposition to the production theory, which holds that the brain produces consciousness. 

The essential point underlying the transmission theory is that correlation is not causation - that the admittedly obvious correlation between brain states and mental states does not establish that the brain causes the mind to come into being. The usual modern analogy is of a television set; damage to its components will compromise the picture and sound in predictable ways, but this does not mean that the TV actually produces the content it displays. The content actually originates as a signal, and the signal will continue uninterrupted and unimpaired even if the set is turned off or destroyed. 

William James

Though objections to the transmission theory today are usually dressed up in the latest findings of neuroscience, there's really nothing new here. Even in James's day (and long before) it was well understood that brain damage or the ingestion of alcohol or certain drugs could alter mental states. No one disputes this; the question is whether the changes to the brain affect the brain's ability to produce consciousness or affect the brain's ability to receive and decode the signal of consciousness, which comes from an outside source. 

Another common Skeptical objection is that the transmission theory is unfalsifiable — i.e., that it cannot be disproven even in principle, rendering it untestable and unscientific. Let's take a closer look at this argument. 

First, it should be pointed out that neither the transmission theory nor the production theory really deserves the name of "theory." Both ideas are thumbnail sketches, vague starting points for a possible theory that has yet to be developed. Though there has been some effort to explain the mechanism of transmission in terms of quantum tunneling and microtubules, the work is still in a preliminary phase and is very controversial. Meanwhile, no one on the production side of the debate has ventured to solve the "hard problem" of neuroscience - how electrochemical activities in the brain become qualia and self-awareness. 

Though I'll continue to use the term "theory" for convenience, it might be more accurate to describe both production and transmission as hypotheses — or even as suggestions, notions, or speculations. 

But what about unfalsifiability? Is it true that the transmission theory is inherently impossible to disprove? 

Probably, yes. No matter how many correlations are found between brain and mind, the transmission theory can always insist that the mind's true source lies elsewhere. Even if the source is never found, advocates of transmission can maintain that it's out there ... somewhere. And even if artificial intelligence someday replicates human intelligence, it will be possible to argue that AI is only a simulation lacking true self-awareness — a masterful imitation but not the real thing. 

So if transmission is unfalsifiable, where does that leave us? Well, it means we need to take a hard look at production. Is that theory falsifiable in principle?

Answer: yes. It could be falsified by any convincing evidence that consciousness can operate when the brain is shut down or permanently defunct. After all, if consciousness persists when the brain is flatlining or dead, then it cannot depend on the brain's activity for its existence (even if it does require the brain to mediate its interaction with the physical world). 

Now, I would argue that there already is convincing evidence on exactly this point. The best documented cases of NDEs, mediumship, and spontaneous reincarnation memories (among other things) strongly suggest — and arguably prove — that consciousness does, in fact, continue even when the brain is temporarily or permanently offline. 

In other words, it can be argued that while transmission is indeed unfalsifiable, production has already been falsified. Production cannot cover all the data — it cannot explain, and is not consistent with, the parapsychological evidence — and therefore it must be wrong. 

This, in itself, does not prove that the transmission theory is correct. Perhaps there is some third alternative. Perhaps any form of dualism is wrong, and consciousness is all there is. Who can say?

But while we can't say definitively that transmission is true, we can — if we accept the evidence from parapsychology — say definitively that production is false. To overturn that conclusion, Skeptics would have to show that all the empirical evidence indicative of postmortem survival can be explained by deception, delusion, mistaken observation, faulty memory, and so forth. I wish them luck! 

Comments

[hhwf97t2g]

The filter model of the brain has withstood three tests the cold have falsified it:

1) Brain damage that acts like a clog in the filter should reduce consciousness. For example when brain damage causes memory loss.

2) Brain damage that acts like a hole in the filter should produce new conscious abilities. For example increased psi and acquired savant syndrome are known to occur after brain injuries.

3) The disembodied mind should experience unfiltered consciousness. For example during NDEs experiencers see colors never seen before and have 360 degree vision.

Each of these phenomenon clogged filter, punctured filter and unfiltered consciousness represent possible falsification tests that the filter model passed.

According to Karl Popper you can't prove a theory you can only falsify one. The filter model is falsifiable but has not yet been falsified. It is a distortion of Popper's philosophy to imply that after passing a falsification test the theory becomes unfalsifiable.

http://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/skeptical_fallacies#skeptical_fallacies_brain

[Claudio from Italy]

Hi,Michael.

I think that's impossible to scientifically demonstrate the existence of our consciousness as a kind of "signal" coming from an external source, since we won't get a device to capture it. It's like to explore our own face with no mirrors at hand. Regular scientific protocols can't be applied without tangible proofs, so we have to trust on "forensic" evidence: thousands -if not millions- of messages, witnesses,accounts and unexplainable "coincidences" are more than enough to say that we're dual beings.

[Sleepers]

The argument is that none of the experiences described are unexplainable by weird musing of the mind. Fraud, mistake, hallucination, wishful thinking, altered states with or without mind altering substances, 'dying brain' oxygen deprivation or DMT release at the moment of death, even a surge of brain activity at the moment of death - a wide variety of natural phenomenon could account for what's going on with any particular person's perception. You can prove this natural phenomenon occurs by repeated testing, whereas the evidence of parapsychology has not passed that standard. The Skeptics will pass the buck right back to us - you've never shown any unnatural phenomenon exists in the natural world, shouldn't you be required to prove that something unnatural did occur? That is, as opposed to the rational, natural explanations that could be at work here?

[Julie Baxter]

"But while we can't say definitively that transmission is true, we can — if we accept the evidence from parapsychology — say definitively that production is false. To overturn that conclusion, Skeptics would have to show that all the empirical evidence indicative of postmortem survival can be explained by deception, delusion, mistaken observation, faulty memory, and so forth. I wish them luck!"

Aw, bless their little cotton socks. They're doing their best. :)

[Art]

If everything we call real is made out of things that aren't real as Niels Bohr states and if our Universe is a hoax or illusion as Roger Ebert said to his wife in his death bed vision then both of those statements lead me in the direction of consciousness being the only thing that is real and everything we call real here is actually just some kind of strange holographic projection "spoken" into existence like the book of Genesis said. As strange as it seems those early people somehow had access to information or knowledge long before there was even such a thing as "science."

[Billy Mavreas]

what a great read, thank you !

[Ross Petras]

A very nicely constructed and compelling argument that surprised me, with a big..if... That big game changing if.
I don't find as compelling evidence as you seem to of veridical "offline" accounts. I hope you're right. And, in fact, I think you're right.
But I'm still in a doubting mode and want more evidence. I'm hoping the IANDs translation of a new book on near death accounts as verified later will convince me. In the meantime, why not post some more evidence that has convinced you?

[Michael Prescott]

"1) Brain damage that acts like a clog in the filter should reduce consciousness. For example when brain damage causes memory loss.

"2) Brain damage that acts like a hole in the filter should produce new conscious abilities. For example increased psi and acquired savant syndrome are known to occur after brain injuries."

Interesting, but these examples seem to beg the question. Lacking an understanding of the filter mechanism, how can we say that one type of brain damage clogs the filter, while another type opens a hole in the filter? All we can really say is brain damage sometimes produces anomalous results.

"It is a distortion of Popper's philosophy to imply that after passing a falsification test the theory becomes unfalsifiable."

That's true, but I don't see the transmission theory as having passed any falsification tests. The transmission theory is broader than the filter theory, which argues that the brain acts as a kind of reducing valve for extracerebral consciousness. With transmission, we are not specifying whether the "signal" is in some way attenuated on account of its mediation by the brain. It could be - in fact I think it very probably is - but such attenuation is not essential to the idea.

Possibly the filter theory, which is a little more specific, is falsifiable in principle. But I suspect it is also too simplistic, since the relationship between mind and brain seems to be dynamic - more like the relationship between a Mars Rover and Mission Control, as Bruce Lipton suggests in his book "The Biology of Belief." I discussed this analogy back in 2009:

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2009/06/rovin.html

[Amos Oliver Doyle]

Isn't there a third idea, hypothesis or theory that identifies the brain as a filter. Rather than the brain producing consciousness, or receiving and transmitting consciousness from some outside source metaphorically like a radio or TV set, isn't there more evidence to suggest that it may be more reasonable to think that the location or source of consciousness is indeed 'in' the body but not produced by the body/brain or received by the body/brain from some outside transmission. Individual consciousness could be regarded as a spark which is part of a larger fire or main source of all consciousnesses but is embodied in an individual physical form.

NDE-ers experience their consciousness actually leaving the body and when they return to their body experience themselves, i.e., consciousness, squeezing back in, sometimes with much discomfort. The brain may be filtering what is coming in to the embodied conscious mind from a physical reality, not producing consciousness or receiving a transmission of consciousness from some outside transmitter.

The brain as filter of physicality allows the embodied consciousness to experience an ordered meaningful reality rather than being overwhelmed by a chaos of signals and vibrations void of any meaning. This may explain how beliefs of the consciousness either individual or group beliefs are able to change the brain's filtering ability and thereby actually change reality for the consciousness. This may sound very similar to the radio/TV metaphor again but I think there is a difference in that the brain as filter is more congruent with the concept of an individual 'soul' and agrees with the illusion and hoax of physical reality per Roger Ebert's deathbed comment. I think cases of spirit possession and multiple personality are more likely to be explained by occupying 'souls' rather than brain production or transmission of a consciousness.

Each consciousness embodied in a physical form would experience its own special reality. Therefore my dog's brain would filter her reality to produce an experience or physical reality different from mine but totally appropriate for her dog consciousness. And likewise through-out the animal kingdom each creature would experience the reality best-suited to its own evolutionary needs as a consciousness if its brain functioned as a specialized filter. If one allows for the possibility of transmigration of souls, that is, reincarnation of consciousness from one species to another then this specialized filter hypothesis might allow for growth in knowledge and love of the universe as each consciousness returns in a perfected state to its source. - AOD

[Matt Rouge]

Nice post, Michael!

I would say that a pure, materialistic version of production has been falsified, yes.

But a hybrid is certainly possible too, and that's what I think is going on. The weakness in the transmission theory is that it doesn't account for why we have human nature in the first place (i.e., are these weird primates on a watery planet).

You know my spiel: pure consciousness is the i-Thought, which we do "download" (to put it in the crudest terms). The brain and body (don't forget the endocrine system and other bodily systems that are essential to emotion!) do both produce and download (memory is probably not local). There is life after death because information is indestructible and our information content survives.

IOW, the reality is probably as complex as any other biological system.

[Roger Knights]

MP wrote, "Another common Skeptical objection . . . ."

Three cheers for adopting the conention of capitalizing references to scoffer-skeptics!

[Michael Prescott]

"The brain and body (don't forget the endocrine system and other bodily systems that are essential to emotion!) do both produce and download ..."

Yes, this is what I was getting at with my reference to Lipton's Mars Rover analogy. Mind-brain seems to be a dynamic, bidirectional system (and as you say, not actually limited to the brain - so maybe mind-body is the better term).

The Rover takes instructions from Mission Control but also makes moment-to-moment "decisions" on its own. Like a robot vacuum cleaner, it can avoid obstacles and stop itself from falling off a steep incline. Moreover, the data it sends to Mission Control help determine the next set of instructions that Mission Control beams up. I don't know if the Rover learns from its own decisions, but that capability is certainly possible, and would improve the analogy.

A human being is a complex amalgam of instincts, reflexes, autonomic systems, learned habits, primal "lizard brain" reactions ... and self-aware consciousness. In certain situations the "lower" (biological and evolutionary) aspects take over entirely, as in the case of mob psychology. In most situations the lower aspects compete with consciousness for control. Perhaps a few spiritual masters have tamed their lower selves completely, but these cases (if they exist) are rare.

Religions generally advise us to listen to our higher self and stifle the lower self. Hence the injunctions against fornication and other bodily pleasures. These teachings are probably intended as an ideal that cannot be fully reached, or as deliberate exaggeration to counterbalance our natural inclination to side with the impulses of the body.

I think a great deal of our mundane daily life is simply habit, as are most of the random and repetitive thoughts that pass through our heads. In many ways the distance between humans and apes is not that great. This fact supplies some plausibility to behaviorism, evolutionary psychology, and similar disciplines. But there is a difference - humans apparently have a more highly developed self-aware consciousness, and while it doesn't always trump the lower impulses, it sometimes does.

[Matt Rouge]

Good points, AOD and Michael.

I think the brain-with-body is probably all three: producer, receiver/transmitter, and filter:

Producer: At the very least the body is producing thirst, hunger, etc. In my view, it probably forms the foundation of what may be termed human nature, as well as our character, likes, dislikes, etc. However, it could be selectively downloading routines and interacting with our Higher Self, past selves and more (Sheldrake's morphic resonance, etc.)

Receiver/transmitter: I think the evidence is pretty good that memories are not stored in the brain. My guess is that the brain evolved to upload and download its memories to the "cloud": the cloud in this case being the Askashic records, the indestructible depository of all information. Moreover, the brain can download not only specific memories but entire brain states. Thus, a musician who is playing a piece "goes back" to the actual brain state (or amalgam of states) whose pathway has been reinforced through repetition (muscle memory, etc.).

Filter: This is directly related to receiver/transmitter. They should probably be one category. But anyhow, the brain has evolved to upload and download information pertinent to survival and shut out the rest. The "aperture" of the camera, however, can be changed rather easily through meditation, drugs, mental illness, and simple practice. Here we have psi, spiritual experiences, etc.

The "soul" is our information content. This explains the fact of the afterlife. Note that it is dynamic, living information, so we are still alive after death since information is indestructible. This is as true for a rock or dog or anything. The "afterlife" of a rock is just that conglomeration of mineral. The afterlife of a dog is the living, dynamic information content of the animal.

[Julie Baxter]

Why not the brain as both a filter and a transmitter? Akin to Broadbent's selective attention theory of some fifty years ago?

[Ian Wardell]

This whole falsifiability issue is a red herring.

From studying the philosophy and history of science many years ago at University (and I got firsts in these associated credit areas), the falsifiability criterion is used to distinguish a scientific hypothesis from a non-scientific hypothesis.

The idea is that if one has a hypothesis, but all conceivable observations of the world are compatible with the hypothesis being either true or false, then your hypothesis is -- at least from a scientific perspective -- *devoid of any content*. You're not actually saying anything about the world since all possible physical states of affairs are compatible with the hypothesis.

But this simply can't be applied in the scenarios where either something exists/obtains, or it does not.

So in the case of a "life after death" we either simply cease to exist, or in some form we survive. Either the brain produces consciousness, or it does not. The fact we might have no observational means of eliminating one of these possibilities does absolutely nothing to show that the whole issue is devoid of content. Least of all does it show that the possibility that can't be "falsified" (the "filter" or transmission hypothesis) is therefore not true. To conclude this would be the height of ridiculousness!

Compare this to the question of whether the Universe is spatially finite or whether it is spatially infinite. We can in principle falsify the hypothesis the Universe is infinite. For example we could discover a cosmic boundary/wall a trillion light years away. However we could not falsify the hypothesis it is finite. Even discovering new galaxies a googolplexian light years away is not incompatible with the Universe being finite. But it would be clearly absurd to thereby conclude it cannot be finite!

Also people should be aware that one cannot falsify something which is true. Thus we cannot falsify the hypothesis that the Sun rises every morning. However this doesn't show the Sun doesn't rise every morning. But here there are conceivable observations that serve to show whether the hypothesis is true or not.

[Juan]

What Ian Wardell wrote. Philosophers of science distinguish between facts and theories. The facts are particular events and they occur or not, but they can not be falsified. However theories are general statements about a set of facts and oversimplify they are statements of the type "if A, then B", so if we observe A but not B, then the theory is falsified. Thus the hypothesis of transmission is not a theory but a posible fact, as the afterlife hypothesis also.

Afterlife proponents need to register more casuistry in safer conditions, so that the existence of an afterlife is the only thing that can make sense of the data.

[no one]

Michael, great comment at 12:47 a.m./May 6th.

Matt, "Producer: At the very least the body is producing thirst, hunger, etc."

I think that is something obvious that should not be overlooked, but sometimes is.

Julie,"Why not the brain as both a filter and a transmitter? Akin to Broadbent's selective attention theory of some fifty years ago? "

Yes. Why not? As Michael and Matt point out, clearly the brain is responsible for a lot of our lower functions (esp. the autonomic nervous system) and stimulus/response type behaviors.

For a long time I thought this debate could be settled by assembling a team of OBE experts - perhaps from the Monroe institute? - and have them perform tests similar to what the AWARE study attempted with NDErs.

I understand that something like that was done many years ago (by Targ?). The experimenters were convinced that they had proven that human awareness was capable of perceiving beyond the physical location of the body/brain. Skeptics, of course, are critical and state that nothing like that was proven.

I think the experiments should be done again with a large group of participants. We would only need a white crow or two.

That said, I don't think OBEs/NDEs work in the literal dualistic sense that they are often interpreted by "believers" as representing. Still, the experiments could demonstrate that the strict materialist view point is wrong.

[Julie Baxter]

Good points all, Ian. But my understanding has always been that Popper simply meant that, in order for an hypothesis to be scientific, it must be possible to devise (at least in principle) a means of proving an hypothesis false. And that if there is no such means then the hypothesis is non-scientific. Or have I missed something vital in the permutation?

Of course one cannot falsify something that is true. But in order to establish whether the sun rises every morning one only has to sit up and wait.

[Julie Baxter]

Ps. Therefore the sun-rising-every-morning hypothesis is, by Popper's definition, falsifiable and, therefore, scientific.

[Michael Prescott]

"The sun rises every morning" is not a theory, it's a claim of fact. Popper's argument applies only to theories.

It's a fact that an apple will fall from a tree. It's a theory that gravity accounts for this fact by warping spacetime (or whatever the idea is).

It's a fact that there's an oak tree in my backyard. It's a theory that the oak tree's existence can be explained in terms of natural selection and random mutation.

It's a fact that there is some relationship between mind and brain. It's a theory that this relationship can be explained as direct causality (brain produces mind) or as mediation (the brain receives a signal or filters an input, etc.).

A theory is more than a statement of (alleged) fact. It's a model that attempts to make sense of that fact in terms of its causes and mechanism. It doesn't just say, "This is." It says, "This is how (or why) it is, and how it will be in future cases of the same type." The predictive element is what allows for testing and possible falsification.

[Michael Prescott]

It might be argued that "the sun will rise tomorrow" is a prediction, and therefore testable, and therefore the statement constitutes a theory. But I don't think this is quite so, at least in the Popperian sense. I could be wrong, but I would say that a theory, in the scientific sense, requires more than an extrapolation from past occurrences. It requires a mechanism.

I could predict the winner of the Kentucky Derby, and this prediction is testable, but it is not a scientific theory. But if I claimed that Derby winners could be reliably predicted by genetic analysis, because the winning horses always had a certain gene that lengthened their stride, then this would be a testable scientific theory.

[Barbara]

As you got firsts, Ian, I feel duty bound to take issue with you.

The fact that the Universe had a beginning proves it’s not infinite- because it is still expanding like a balloon – the envelope is obviously finite. QED.

As for the Sun rising every day, this is easily falsified. First, the Earth rotates on its axis, which only makes it seem as if the sun rises; second, where we live, Ian, it’s frequently cloudy and we see no sun from one day to the next.

Also, as is well known, any comedian can prove Black is White by putting a polar bear in a windowless room and turning out the lights.
;-)

[Julie Baxter]

@Barbara: Wherever one lives, the sun rises every morning.

[Michael Prescott]

"The fact that the Universe had a beginning proves it’s not infinite- because it is still expanding like a balloon – the envelope is obviously finite."

That's a theory - the Big Bang theory - not a fact. It's a well supported theory that has so far resisted attempts to falsify it, but (at least in Popperian terms) it can never be definitively proved.

Also, even if this universe had a beginning, it may just be part of an infinite multiverse (another theory).

[doubter]

Arguments for the transmission and filter theories are well taken, especially the various kinds of evidence for an afterlife, but the simple reductio ad absurdum demarcation problem still gives me pause. If humans have souls that survive physical death, then where in the evolutionary line leading to homo sapiens are we supposed to draw the line between animals not not having souls inhabiting the body vehicle, and then having souls? What we see in paleontology and anthropology is a gradual though somewhat stepwise advance toward Homo Sapiens in physiology, neurology and culture over a couple of million years, and it seems rather arbitrary to say that this "soul transition" occurred at for instance Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, or, finally, at Homo Sapiens. But without some sort of dividing line, even relatively primitive animals like lizards and fish and maybe amoebas are presumed to have souls and an afterlife, to say nothing of the endless millions of factory raised meat animals like chickens, pigs and cattle. This seems absurd, so there must be some sort of a problem with the soul theory.

[Amos Oliver Doyle]

I just about have a brain seizure when I try to think about the physical universe being infinite. I can't get my mind around this idea. If there is 'space' it must be in a 'place' and it is difficult for me to imagine a 'place' as being infinite. Even before a 'Big Bang'---if we accept that theory---there must have existed a place into which our physical universe could expand.

The question could be solved for me if I think that there really is no space or time as some people hypothesize but that hypothesis quickly fades when I know that I experience space and time in my reality and I know that they exist---for me, in my universe!

Perhaps space is like a bubble in an energy field and that our space is finite within that energy field but that our bubble might be just one of many within that field like bubbles in the froth of an ocean wave of energy. - AOD

[Ian Wardell]

Just to say the Universe can be spatially infinite even though it had a beginning. And the Universe can be expanding even though infinite.

Infinity comes in different sizes. For example there are an infinite number of whole numbers. And there are an infinite number of even numbers. But the infinite in the former is twice the infinite in the latter. And the latter can get bigger by adding odd numbers to it.

[Matt Rouge]

Ian wrote,

||But this simply can't be applied in the scenarios where either something exists/obtains, or it does not.||

This is a very important point. Whether "God" (in the classic Western sense) exists or not cannot be scientifically tested, but it can be philosophically argued. Fundamental truths need to be understood in order to perform scientific experiments correctly; they cannot be the subject of scientific experiments.

At the same time, fundamental truths have observable phenomena associated with them; otherwise, we have no reason to believe in them in the first place. At some point, the enough phenomena point to the truth, and we either make the intuitive leap, or we don't.

[Lynn]

To me the transmission theory has not been demonstrated, whereas that we perhaps co-create our world has been using the double slit experiments.

Love the little video attached to this article for quantum dummies like me-

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/05/01/scientific-study-shows-meditators-collapsing-quantum-systems-at-a-distance/

The trans4mind article I posted on Matts article also shows how many who have out of body experiences, NDE's , similarly have a sense of oneness, that they are are conscious, and the universe is too.

So to me there is more to indicate that each and every atom has consciousness itself in the universe.

Lyn x.

[Matt Rouge]

doubter wrote,

||If humans have souls that survive physical death, then where in the evolutionary line leading to homo sapiens are we supposed to draw the line between animals not not having souls inhabiting the body vehicle, and then having souls?||

I totally agree. I think the idea of a soul as a kind of "object" is not only loaded with a ton of problems; there is also minimal evidence for from NDEs, ADCs, etc.

If suppose that soul is equivalent to the information content of the animal, then there is no need to worry about what has a soul and what doesn't.

[Luciano]

AOD, actually the exact opposite happens to me. It's almost impossible for me to see this Universe as finite, I mean, if our Universe is in some place, then what is beyond our Universe, where does it end? What is beyond that? And after that end, what is beyond?

[Lynn]

I want to add, that I feel many physicists have trouble with quantum principles. I have read an article by a university professor and he admitted the problems with teaching it. Lets face it, dealing with material that can't be seen ( or extremely minute) and measuring it accurately is not feasible. And so much like consciousness, science tends to ignore what they find hard to understand.

Because really, the double slit shows that an observer makes particles become organised instead of random i.e we potentiate matter, or mind affects/changes matter.

My tarot card which are made of particles therefore react the same, nothing spiritual there ( although most people would assert that belief, including scientists). So by simply directing my observation on the particles in the cards, I suggest based on the particular pattern they have now, how will these organise themselves under another set of conditions in the future. Now I could use stones and assign a value, or even doors if I could juggle them. Its all the same, they are all made of matter of which we can influence.

In the article on the double slit, the author has added other studies using the principle - I have added those below. The placebo effect for example demonstrates in one article how those who thought they were operated on for a known complaint, similarly healed the same as those who actually got the operation i.e. mind influenced matter.

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/03/08/10-scientific-studies-that-prove-consciousness-can-alter-our-physical-material-world/

Cheer Lyn x.

[Juan]

"But without some sort of dividing line, even relatively primitive animals like lizards and fish and maybe amoebas are presumed to have souls and an afterlife, to say nothing of the endless millions of factory raised meat animals like chickens, pigs and cattle. This seems absurd, so there must be some sort of a problem with the soul theory."

Why does it seem absurd? All living beings, just to be alive, may have a proto-consciousness, which can be seen from the outside as the soul or astral or ethereal body. Another idea is that the demarcation is established by the individualization: a living being remains a individual after death if he /she has reached a certain individualization before dying, because there are different degrees of individualization in the biosphere.

However, the main problem that I see here is that you want to convert a unknown point in an objection: that we do not know to establish the demarcation between living with afterlife and living without afterlife, this does not imply that it is no more likely that some living beings appear or communicate after death.

[Claudio from Italy]

Mike,
a reader of my site asked
"What's the SUBSTANCE of the Afterlife?"
No way to give him a correct reply: neutrons, neutrinos, dark matter? How can we scientifically study something that we don't know at all? If we truly know the 5% of the Universe, how can we find a correct answer?
Even if we can demonstrate that our brains are simply receivers, WHAT do they receive?
Guess they are not usual EMW's like those of our cellphones!

Best wishes.

[Steve Hume]

Doubter wrote: -

“If humans have souls that survive physical death, then where in the evolutionary line leading to homo sapiens are we supposed to draw the line between animals not having souls inhabiting the body vehicle, and then having souls?”

Spiritist (or, Kardecist) and Spiritualist teachings aver that all have ‘souls’, or ‘spirits’, and that there is no hard and fast dividing line – just relative degrees of ‘development’ i.e. individualisation, conscious self-awareness, etc. The Kardec teachings (see “The Spirits’ Book”), in particular, talk about a human ‘stage’ of development, or evolution (not relevant to physical form).

If there’s any truth in that (how should I know?) then it would appear that the idea of living beings having or not having ‘souls’ is something of a misnomer...an anachronism of earlier religions – most of all, perhaps, of Christianity.

It might be more sensible to think in terms of relatively evolved consciousness.

[Amos Oliver Doyle]

Doubter, I like to think that at any point that a living organism had consciousness, it had a soul. Through incarnation in living organisms, either great or small, God evolves. - AOD

[no one]

doubter, "This seems absurd, so there must be some sort of a problem with the soul theory."

The problem is that you are starting with a couple of premises - evolution is true and evolution is a strictly biological/mechanical process - and then following those premises to their logical conclusion; there is a problem with the soul theory.

If one or both of your original premises is wrong, then you logical conclusion will be wrong too.

A system of thought is where you unquestionably accept some premises and then all other understanding flows from those premises. And that is what you have in the material science of the Skeptics - and in your evolution theory.

The fact is that there are giant holes in the current understanding of evolution and strong reason to not accept life randomly developing and randomly mutating into ever more complex critters.

There are a number of alternative theories out there that make some sense based on an objective consideration of the evidence. Rupert Sheldrake's morphic fields is an example.

[Amos Oliver Doyle]

Doubter, I know it must be a paradigm shift for many people to think that lizards (dinosaurs), fish, amoebae, chickens, pigs, and cattle have consciousness, i.e. souls but it is the arrogance of humans that reserve possession of and survival of the soul only to them. Perhaps part of the ugliness of humans is that they regard other animals as expendable because they think they do not have consciousness, understanding, emotions or other traits which humans think only they are blessed to possess.

In the world of spirit, consciousness has no form unless it desires to experience one. - AOD

[Ingrid]

Speaking of which, I found yet another attempt to explain the origin of OBEs. Is it just me or are these becoming more plentiful now?

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1113384308/origins-of-out-of-body-experiences-traced-to-the-brain-050515/

[Kathleen]

This is slightly OT, but one thing strongly in favor of the transmission theory is the many cases of people who have dementia, but then, shortly before death, they suddenly become lucid and aware. I haven't read anything that could explain this, or that at least made sense.

Personally, when I first read about the transmission theory, it was as if a light bulb went off, and I felt that I understood everything finally.

[no one]

"Is it just me or are these becoming more plentiful now?"

Materialists and Skeptics desperately trying to stop the mounting tidal wave of evidence that threatens to smash their precious paradigm.

It's clear from your link that they don't even understand, quantitatively or qualitatively what it is they are arguing about.

People who have OBEs don't just have a brain fart that confuses them into misperceiving their location. They actually perceive real events at a location (and sometimes at a time) different from the location of their physical body. There is evidence to support that what they perceive is real and is well beyond guess work, coincidence or imagination. I know that I have convinced myself of this fact from my own OBE experiences; as have many others. More objectively we have Targ and others.

[no one]

Classic Skeptic: ""I know of one event that came very close to providing scientific proof of autoscopy. The only reason it did not qualify as scientific proof is because the proper controls weren't used at the time it occurred. Dr. Charles Tart was experimenting with a subject who would have spontaneous out-of-body experiences. A remote five-digit number was placed out of view of the subject. She had an out-of-body experience and successfully read the five-digit number. The subject was then able to return to her body and successfully tell Dr. Tart what the number is. This provides strong circumstantial evidence that consciousness can transcend the physical body."

circumstantial?

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/skeptic03.html

[David Chilstrom]

I love William James’s majestic Ingersoll lecture on Immortality that Michael references here. However, if a gun were put to my head and I were to answer the true or false question in the title of this post, my answer would be false. Our materialist brethren are justly attracted to a monist metaphysics; as reconciling the connection between the material stuff of matter and energy and the apparently immaterial stuff of consciousness is intractably difficult. So, the one stuff hypothesis has an aesthetic and practical appeal that is hard to shake.

There is an excellent interview with Bernardo Kastrup on Skeptiko currently. I highly recommend it. Kastrup is the author of the provocatively titled Why Materialism is Baloney. Kastrup would be categorized as an idealist, which is a monistic metaphysics positing that the essential nature of everything is mental rather than physical. By the reckoning of idealism, what we call the physical universe is a figment of the imagination of a cosmic mind.

In honor of our host, I would call this majestic one the Great Storyteller. The many adventures of our world, from its inception, the emergence of life, the massive cast of characters, etc. compose a slim volume in the massive library of the Great Storyteller’s tales. It’s a continually unfolding story of course, and we are like the characters of some authors, who take on a life of their own and divert from time to off the direction where the plot is intended to go.

Our culture looks to the priesthood of science to deliver us from the vagaries of existence and enlighten us as to the ultimate nature of reality. We should remove this load from their backs and each take on our fair share of the burden. The task of revealing and comprehending the nature of things is as much the work of poets and storytellers as it is that of philosophers and scientists. To give a specific instance of this, much of the evidence for the afterlife is anecdotal. We have the marvelous literature of 19th century and early 20th century spiritualism. There are fantastic tales of levitating tables and mediums, apports dropping out of thin air in the midst of séance, voices speaking through floating trumpets, and ghostly apparitions. And also, the amazing stories from inhabitants of the spirit world, and of those who have had a brief sojourn there and returned to tell the tale. Who better to critique the credibility of these accounts than an author of detective fiction such as our host? Shades of Arthur Conan Doyle!

We have an example of Michael’s literary criticism in several posts on this blog where he calls into question the authorship of one of the classics of spiritualist literature Life in the World Unseen. Michael’s justifiable complaint is that the book reads more like fiction than a factual account of the afterlife. This is an excellent case, as the supposed author, Monseigneur Robert Hugh Benson, wrote novels and other literature while in the body. How does Life in the World Unseen stack up against Come Rack, Come Rope, The Necromancers (a book the discarnate Benson allegedly regrets), and Lord of the World?

Is the supposed amanuensis, Anthony Borgia, a fraud who has adopted the persona of a dead priest as ghost writer for his inventive fiction? Or, does Life in the World Unseen compare favorably to the works of Monseigneur Benson while in the body? Though a careful literary analysis would not likely yield definite proof of authorship, it might be sufficient to indicate whether Benson is the probable author, or likely not the author.

Apologies for the off topic ramble, but my point is that the questions posed in this post and on this blog are as likely to find answers from the humanities as they are from the sciences. A multidisciplinary approach to the mystery of the afterlife is essential.

[doubter]

no one: || The fact is that there are giant holes in the current understanding of evolution and strong reason to not accept life randomly developing and randomly mutating into ever more complex critters.

There are a number of alternative theories out there that make some sense based on an objective consideration of the evidence. Rupert Sheldrake's morphic fields is an example. ||

I agree that there are "giant holes" in the present consensus (Darwinian RM + NS) theory of evolution. But the evolution of consciousness definitely happened. In the broad perspective of the last 500 million years, animal consciousness seems definitely to have gradually evolved over multiple major steps, with the degree of intelligence and level of awareness roughly correlated with the brain complexity and encephalization quotient, or the ratio of brain size to body size.

This seems to be most compatible with the production hypothesis, where consciousness is the result of neuronal processing in the brain. The evolution of consciousness would have occurred presumably because it was the most efficient or effective way for an animal to deal with a hostile environment. It would be more efficient and powerful to have a "conscious" and "aware" system that maintains an internal model of the external environment and can predict future interactions, than a more simply organized system with multitudes of specialized individual stimulus/response networks. Sort of like the advantage of a general purpose processor with program and operating system over discrete hard wired logic.

To continue into the human era, the fossil, tool and other evidence is overwhelming for a gradual process of physical and cultural evolution over the last couple of million years of prehominid and hominid forms. This evidence seems also to be best explained by the notion that ever complexifying minds are the product of ever complexifying brains.

But ultimately the fossil record and comparitive physiology and neurology are also compatible with the transmission and filter hypotheses. Preexisting consciousness could be continually trying to manifest in the physical to the degree it can through ever more complex vehicles.

Psi and afterlife evidence apply almost exclusively to humans not to lower animals. If lower forms of animal life continue to exist in some sort of spiritual form, it is very difficult or impossible to conceive of what this "afterlife" could be like. And it would be hard to accept the implication of the vast badness of creating, raising under cruel circumstances and then butchering endless hundreds of millions of unique spiritual beings in the form of factory meat animals such as chickens, pigs and cattle.

[Lynn]

@ David Chilistrom, thanks for the Skeptiko update, haven't looked at that site for a while. Most people are familiar with Bernado Kastrup here, they are a pretty well read bunch -enjoy his books, have Dreamed up a Reality on my e-book.

I think the point this site wishes to express, is that a multi-disciplinary approach 'is essential' to the mystery of the afterlife- that of materialism, as well as non- materialism. As well as the disciplines of the humanities, theology, philosophy, etc. Lyn x.

[Lynn]

@ Doubter I don't have trouble with evolution causal to the ongoing development of a species, I tend to believe however that a consciousness probably began creation and the just by being on earth- that is causal to the ongoing evolution of a species. But like the 'god' or 'higher consciousness theory' as a suggested origin of species, it also has its difficulties, as it also needs to have a beginning.

Telepathy has been demonstrated by Sheldrakes experiments using dogs, who seemed to understand when their owners were coming home.

Pigs are known to have the intelligence of a dog, and just ask my mother how intelligent they are. Having had one as a family pet who used to raid the vege garden. When she had to go and get it out, it simply lay down as it knew it was too heavy for them to lift- much to her annoyance. Lyn x.

[Julie Baxter]

"Psi and afterlife evidence apply almost exclusively to humans not to lower animals. If lower forms of animal life continue to exist in some sort of spiritual form, it is very difficult or impossible to conceive of what this "afterlife" could be like. And it would be hard to accept the implication of the vast badness of creating, raising under cruel circumstances and then butchering endless hundreds of millions of unique spiritual beings in the form of factory meat animals such as chickens, pigs and cattle." - Doubter

I am at a loss as to how you could arrive at those two conclusions.There is plenty of evidence from mediums, NDEs, apparitions etc. to suggest that psi and the afterlife apply equally to animals. Moreover, the prospect of 'millions of unique spiritual beings in the form of factory meat animals' is far from the world's worst form of systematic atrocity.

[no one]

doubter, "To continue into the human era, the fossil, tool and other evidence is overwhelming for a gradual process of physical and cultural evolution over the last couple of million years of prehominid and hominid forms."

Without totally losing your interesting point, I think caution should be exercised when making this statement. Are we going to say that Native Americans and Africans, who were basically living in the stone age while Europeans were going through the enlightenment and setting the stage for the industrial revolution, are less evolved and "stupider" because they had no written language and used stone tools? is there any evidence that their brains are smaller or somehow less developed compared to Europeans?

What of peoples in what we know as India today? The Indo-Aryans were highly advanced early on in recorded history, only to culturally fall way behind by western standards. There seems to be an ebb and flow to human intellectual evolution that is not dependent on brain size.

Also, Sure, a person's brain-to-body ratio is huge compared to that of an elephant (about 1/40 versus 1/560, respectively); but it's pretty much equal to what you find in a mouse (also 1/40), and it's actually smaller than the ratio you encounter in some small birds (1/12). So I'm not sure what, if anything this, line of thought suggests.

Next, as you say, looking at brains does nothing to alleviate the original chicken/egg conundrum; a more complex non-physical awareness might generally require and direct the development of a more complex physical structure to accommodate it's more complex behaviors.

Then we have the problem of people who are lacking significant portions of their brains, yet are living normal modern lives, graduating college, etc. By strict materialists this should not be possible.

"Psi and afterlife evidence apply almost exclusively to humans not to lower animals" Not true; Sheldrake pretty convincingly demonstrated psi in dogs. I think psi is difficult to study in animals, but mostly it just isn't done because no one is interested in funding the research.

"If lower forms of animal life continue to exist in some sort of spiritual form, it is very difficult or impossible to conceive of what this "afterlife" could be like. "

Well, I think it is also difficult or impossible (in normal awareness) to conceive of what a tree's experience of life is like, or a dolphin's, or an eagle's - yet, these things exist on earth. So my ability to relate to their experience of life is irrelevant to the fact that these creatures do exist in an aware state. Why would their ability to exist in an afterlife state be any more or less dependent on human ability to conceive what that would be like?

Personally, I think all of these states or levels of awareness are out there in the "spiritual ether" in the form of fields of awareness, primal urges and that sort of thing - all of which determine what kind of physical vessel will be inhabited and that can drive the evolution of physical forms. In this way the physical is a reflection - or a symbol - of the spiritual life. To put it another way, the physical might be nothing more than a point of focus for awareness.

For this reason, I am thinking that OBEs are not so literally dualistic as we usually make them out to be. Rather, it is awareness moving from the focus on the mental construct of the physical body. Awareness is not literally leaving the body, because the body, physical space and time are only as real as we think they are. They don't exist in an objective sense beyond a consensus construct that we have unconsciously agreed upon; like hypnosis. I digress.....

[Juan]

"Psi and afterlife evidence apply almost exclusively to humans not to lower animals."

It is true, but that may be because researchers are human beings and that postmortem communication is a subject of affinity.

"If lower forms of animal life continue to exist in some sort of spiritual form, it is very difficult or impossible to conceive of what this "afterlife" could be like."

It is not more difficult to imagine how the lower forms of life feel for their biological lives.

"And it would be hard to accept the implication of the vast badness of creating, raising under cruel circumstances and then butchering endless hundreds of millions of unique spiritual beings in the form of factory meat animals such as chickens, pigs and cattle."

I know your argument because we have already discussed. You assume that if there is an afterlife for a animal, then the life of that being is to be significant. The deaths of millions of animals in slaughterhouses make their lives are meaningless. Then no afterlife for these animals.

But you are confusing the question of meaning with empirical questions: the psychic research shows that the most likely cause is that exists a personal afterlife for some humans, but tells us nothing about the meaning of life. I prefer to believe that the afterlife is a natural phenomenon, which does not necessarily point to a transcendental meaning of reality.

[Amos Oliver Doyle]

Doubter said " If lower forms of animal life continue to exist in some sort of spiritual form, it is very difficult or impossible to conceive of what this "afterlife" could be like.

And is it difficult or impossible to conceive of what the present life is like with so-called lower animal forms in it? This reality we are in contains all variety of life forms e.g. humans, dogs cats, birds, insects etc. etc. It is not difficult for me to see that all of those life forms and others contain a consciousness, perhaps not all equally developed or evolved. It is the consciousness that survives not the physical form.

In this discussion we were contemplating that the brain may not create consciousness and if that is so, then the size of the brain does not matter. Consciousness exists without the brain whether it is an insect brain or the brain of a porpoise. Brain size is irrelevant when it comes to consciousness.

Consciousness of itself has no form therefore without a body, all consciousness is part and parcel of the same substance; some evolving toward omniscience, others not so far along.

There are animal forms in the afterlife only if the consciousness continues to identify with that form. I think that they and I will choose a form that is most comfortable to us in the spiritual life.