Thursday, 5 March 2009

Is a "life after death" conceivable?

1. Proof that the brain produces consciousness?



2. A useful Simile?





3. What is the self?








4. Is the simile appropriate?





5. Is such a self consistent with the evidence?





6. Looking at all the evidence in the round











Does Consciousness depend on the Brain?

There is a critique of the above article by Keith Augustine.

There is a response by Chris Carter to this critique.



Update:  This blog entry by myself is also relevant:

Science, the Afterlife, and the Intelligentsia

Ian Wardell










  1. Hi Ian,

    Your essay is excellent. Also your ideas on free will are very interesting, you have many thought-provoking ideas.

    In addition to Carter's excellent articles, I'd suggest the articles by philosopher Titus Rivas:

    If you have interest in dualism, check the book "A World for Us: The Case for Phenomenalistic Idealism" by philosopher John Foster.

    Keep the good work.


  2. This:


    ... is not only common sense, but is being used everyday by therapists, such as psychosynthesists for example (Assagioli's tradition from which I get my Mind-Energy board screen name).

    It's textbook 'disidentification' -- "I have my emotions but am not my emotions" is verbatim quotation from an exercise in the system. In general there are many older traditions that talk about this too, of course. The suggestion is that mistaking one's emotions, or thoughts etc., for one's self is a common cause of psychological difficulty.

    Furthermore, the ability to keep an eye on the ground of one's being rather than a transitory state one is experiencing can have profound positive and integrating effects.

    You've reminded me I need to start up a blog of my own. I have many illustrative things that go with you approach here.

  3. Here is a critique of each section of your article:

    1. We don't think that the brain "produces" consciousness. We believe that consciousness is an illusion, or more specifically that it is a complex state of beliefs (or delusions). Consider the person who says "I saw a ghost". What we know is that they believe that they saw something. If we dig into what they believe a ghost is, you will find all sorts of holes in their logic, hence we define that while they "believe" they saw a ghost, that it was in fact a delusion. Extend these to common delusions we all share and you have consciousness.

    2. The TV analogy falls apart quite quickly, when compared to current brain research. Sure with the TV you cannot change certain things about the show, no matter you tamper with the components. The difference with the brain, is that there is no aspect that can't be physically manipulated. There is no room left for some "extra" signal.

    3. It seems as though you are desperately trying the rescue the intuitive sense of self. I would urge you to throw all your intuitions out the window, as they are the primary cause of incorrect world views. We need to fundamentally change the idea of self to fit the scientific picture which is indeed that it is in constant flux. The only reason we hold the intuition of a singular self, is because the change is quite gradual. If your seven year old self went to bed and woke up as your twenty year old self, their intuition would have a much different perspective.

    4. Again, the TV analogy is not a good one, because we can change EVERY aspect of a person by manipulating their brain, unlike the TV. The "killer argument" is a strawman because it presupposes your conclusions about something "extra". I would drop that argument as it holds no weight.

    5. Phineas Gage is a great example, it is a shame that you used your cognitive bias to try find a way to rectify his situation with your views. If you want to take his situation further, just look at people who have had all different types of strokes. One example is a stroke in the parietal lobe which destroys one side of a persons world. If they draw a flower they will only draw half for example. Yet they will claim that they have a full and complete world view. There are many examples of all different kinds of strokes that drastically alter everything to do with perception, behaviour, etc.

    Again, there is no gap for your TV signal with the brain.

    6. This is the most important part, so read it carefully. DO NOT use your intuition as a basis for a correct world view. It has failed humanity throughout history, and is the biggest road block for overall human progress. Vitalism, geocentrism, aether, free will, god, etc. are all products of a failed intuition. These are examples of bigger ideas, but you can also examine things like the monty hall problem, that shows intuition fails you in even simpler tasks.

    Yes we do have to reestablish the idea of self, and many other things that are popularly held as intuitive "facts".


    Why? Intuition is cognitive laziness. Having studied a long time, my intuitions about these ideas have changed dramatically. Again, seriously ask yourself about the weight intuition should hold, and why people believe it is this almighty source of truth, when it is our centre of cognitive error.

    1. 1. To say consciousness is an illusion is entirely without any meaning. There is no distinction between *seeming* to be conscious and *really* being conscious. Since I seem to be conscious, I therefore am conscious.

      2. The argument would be that the self doesn't change. If the self does indeed change with manipulation of the brain then your argument applies. So we would need people to acknowledge they have *literally* changed i.e existential change rather than mere alterational change See my essay:

      3) I'm not desperately trying to rescue the commonsencial self because I don't see any threats to it. So there is nothing to rescue. You haven't provided any arguments that such a self doesn't exist apart from to appeal to materialism. Since materialism is false (see, this doesn't help you.

      4) Same response as 2.

      5) I haven't denied the compelling evidence of the mind-brain correlations. However I think they are outweighed by other considerations. See the essay I mentioned in 3.

      6) There are different types of intuition. It is one thing to imagine Earth is at the centre of the solar system, or the Earth is flat, quite another to suppose the self doesn't actually exist, or I don't have free will etc. In the absence of arguments to doubt those things why should we doubt them? Again you cannot appeal to materialism since materialism cannot possibly be right.

    2. "You haven't provided any arguments that such a self doesn't exist apart from to appeal to materialism"

      You merely assume something to be true without justification and demand it be proven false. It is your assumption that leads you down a path that cannot be refuted. Erroneous starting point leading to a position that is indefensible.

    3. It seems to the vast majority of human beings that have ever lived that we are selves that persist -- and this is instinctively believed from the earliest possible age. If this is not the case then compelling arguments need to be advanced.

  4. You talk about the possibility of consciousness after death, but what about consciousness before life? If you can be conscious after the brain stops working, because you don't need a brain, then this means you could also be conscious without having a brain yet, or, in the case of people who have not yet and never will be born, without *ever* having a brain. Yet I don't see any mention of these implications in the article--it's all about death.

    Relatedly, if you refuse to let go of the intuitive notion of the discrete and continuous self, then does this non-brain-generated, signal-like consciousness exist as bunch of individuated, discrete entities? Do they have access to one another's experience? If so, how are they individuated? If they're not individuated, isn't it all one consciousness? And if it's all one consciousness, why bother to insist on the inutitive sense of a coherent, unified and continuous self in the first place?

  5. First paragraph. Yes it would be unreasonable to suppose there's an afterlife, but no beforelife. I've written about it:

    2nd paragraph . .I'm struggling to understand. I don't refuse to let go of a continuous self, rather I have no reason to reject it. And are you asking what demarcates one self from another self?

