# GQ as GD: Facts vs. opinions re: the afterlife and other unprovable stuff **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 3, 2010, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876 "2010-12-03T23:30:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 21
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/401 "2010-12-12T03:29:42Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > How _could_ we observe an afterlife from life? It seems that the only way would be to “dip into” it briefly by starting to die, which is what the NDEs are. > > And _we do not know for sure what causes NDEs,_ that is a _**[fact](http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1657919-1,00.html)**_. And yet we’re able to recreate them in controlled settings. Astronauts training in a centrifuge aren’t “dipping into” the realm of the dead, **Stoid**. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/402 "2010-12-12T03:31:22Z")
I’ve had an out of body experience. I was not impressed. A fun hallucination, nothing more. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/403 "2010-12-12T03:41:36Z")
> [@AClockworkMelon](#): > > And yet we’re able to recreate them in controlled settings. . Yes, up to a point. Which is why research continues. If they could recreate and explain every aspect of NDEs it would be a pretty clear case closed. But they can’t. Case open. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/404 "2010-12-12T03:49:11Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Yes, up to a point. No, not to a point. Completely. > [@](#): > > Which is why research continues. If they could recreate and explain every aspect of NDEs it would be a pretty clear case closed. But they can’t. Case open. What aspect do you think they can’t replicate or explain? Even if they couldn’t explain it , they would still only be studying a physiological phenomoneon, not anything extra-physical. Just because something isn’t completely explainable doesn’t mean that magic is therefore a sensible explanation. Magic can be ruled out _a priori_ because it’s impossible. There is no opening for magical explanations to NDE hallucinations. They’re just hallucinations. The people who have them aren’t actually dead, you know. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/405 "2010-12-12T04:03:25Z")
From the [research](http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm) published in _The Lancet_, conducted by the cardiologist who initially was certain that all NDE was explainable via physical processes: > [@](#): > > Several theories have been proposed to explain NDE. We did not show that psychological, neurophysiological, or physiological factors caused these experiences after cardiac arrest. Sabom22 mentions a young American woman who had complications during brain surgery for a cerebral aneurysm. The EEG of her cortex and brainstem had become totally flat. After the operation, which was eventually successful, this patient proved to have had a very deep NDE, including an out-of-body experience, with subsequently verified observations during the period of the flat EEG. > > And yet, neurophysiological processes must play some part in NDE. **Similar** experiences can be induced through electrical stimulation of the temporal lobe (and hence of the hippocampus) during neurosurgery for epilepsy,23 with high carbon dioxide levels (hypercarbia),24 and in decreased cerebral perfusion resulting in local cerebral hypoxia as in rapid acceleration during training of fighter pilots,25 or as in hyperventilation followed by valsalva manoeuvre.4 Ketamine-induced experiences resulting from blockage of the NMDA receptor,26 and the role of endorphin, serotonin, and enkephalin have also been mentioned,27 as have near-death-like experiences after the use of LSD,28 psilocarpine, and mescaline.21 These induced experiences can consist of unconsciousness, out-of-body experiences, and perception of light or flashes of recollection from the past. **These recollections, however, consist of fragmented and random memories unlike the panoramic life-review that can occur in NDE. Further, transformational processes with changing life-insight and disappearance of fear of death are rarely reported after induced experiences.** > > **Thus, induced experiences are not identical to NDE,** and so, besides age, an unknown mechanism causes NDE by stimulation of neurophysiological and neurohumoral processes at a subcellular level in the brain in only a few cases during a critical situation such as clinical death. These processes might also determine whether the experience reaches consciousness and can be recollected. > > With lack of evidence for any other theories for NDE, the thus far assumed, but never proven, concept that consciousness and memories are localised in the brain should be discussed. **How could a clear consciousness outside one’s body be experienced at the moment that the brain no longer functions during a period of clinical death with flat EEG?22 Also, in cardiac arrest the EEG usually becomes flat in most cases within about 10 s from onset of syncope.29,30 Furthermore, blind people have described veridical perception during out-of-body experiences at the time of this experience.31 NDE pushes at the limits of medical ideas about the range of human consciousness and the mind-brain relation.** > > Another theory holds that NDE might be a changing state of consciousness (transcendence), in which identity, cognition, and emotion function independently from the unconscious body, but retain the possibility of non-sensory perception.7,8,22,28,31 > > **Research should be concentrated on the effort to explain scientifically the occurrence and content of NDE. Research should be focused on certain specific elements of NDE, such as out-of-body experiences and other verifiable aspects. Finally, the theory and background of transcendence should be included as a part of an explanatory framework for these experiences.** The Lancet is a highly respected medical journal. They don’t print junk. They printed this. So…Random Doper Joes or respected research? What to choose what to choose… ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/406 "2010-12-12T04:12:38Z")
Cardiology is not a relevant qualification, the phrase “depth of experience” doesn’t mean anything, and there’s nothing of note in that article except some cardiologist is overly impressed by hallucinations. There’s also a hugely fallacious assumption in that article that these experiences occur after the brain ceases to show activity. Bullshit. The subjects have know way of knowing when their hallucinations occurred. Not a fucking thing in that article is evidence for anything non-physiological, and, as a matter of fact, non-physiological explanations for hallucinations can be ruled out _a priori_ because they are impossible. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/407 "2010-12-12T04:58:04Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > We can know things to a virtual certainty, a practical certainty, a functional certainty. I would readily grant (to use one example) that we know to a virtual certainty, a practical certainty, and/or a functional certainty that there is no Santa Claus at the north pole who rides a sleigh powered by flying reindeer and who delivers toys to children throughout the world in the late evening and night hours of December 25th. With equal readiness I would say to an equal certainty that with regards to _certain stipulated interpretations and understandings_ of the term “afterlife”, we know there ain’t one. But once again (and with continued fervor) I’d say you need to avoid walking away from that thinking it answers a different question. It doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/408 "2010-12-12T05:02:26Z")
Ran across [this](http://www.near-death.com/experiences/articles001.html) interesting critique of Susan Blackmore’s book that includes some of the same things I’ve been trying to point out. It caught my attention because it says this right at the top, and echos this thread: > [@](#): > > Discussions about the near-death experience and the idea that consciousness separates from the body are frequently challenged by skeptics who ask: “Didn’t you know Susan Blackmore proved, scientifically, that NDE’s are hallucinations caused by brain activity?” > > When I first heard such claims, I rushed out and purchased Dying to Live, Blackmore’s work on the near-death experience. After reading the book, however, I was left wondering what it was skeptics had read. Dying to Live not only failed to provide scientific support for a “brain only” hypothesis, it contained only conjecture and speculation. > > In a moment of passion, I fired off a critique of Dying to Live, which was subsequently posted on a number of sites. Over the following years, readers wrote to thank me for having posted the critical analysis of the work. > > Ms. Blackmore responded as well and confirmed my observation that the work was primarily that of conjecture and speculation. **So much for the skeptic’s argument that the issue of NDEs has been settled once and for all, scientifically.** > > … > It is my hope that addressing the contents of Dying to Live lessens the flurry of posts and e-mails that arrive saying, “Didn’t you know, Blackmore…” For those who have not read Dying to Live, I highly recommend the book, even though I disagree with the conjectures presented therein; the book nonetheless presents a worthwhile discussion of NDEs. In order to understand the subject, one must become familiar with all the different views that surround the subject. > [@](#): > > We see further evidence of bias in her statement that belief in life after death conflicts with science, as though “science” were a monolithic authority that decrees “what is,” rather than being **a method of inquiry.** > > She offers the unsupported and blatantly false statement that "science tells us” death is the end.\*\* Though she may personally believe death is the end, “science” makes no such pronouncement\*\*. Later in the book, researchers with scientific credentials who take the opposite position—that spirit survives body death—are mentioned, which puts the lie to her earlier statements that science tells us death is the end. Though it may be appropriate to state the personal belief that spirit does not survive body death, presuming to speak for “science” diminishes the book’s credibility from the outset. > > Dying to Live turns out to be, first and foremost, a personal opinion in support of the skeptical viewpoint, not a statement of scientific evidence or proof. The critique is very lengthy and detailed, and an excellent read if one is interested in this whole debate. It includes a response from Blackmore at the end, and this wonderful quote from Einstein: > [@](#): > > “Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world. All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it.” - Albert Einstein ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/409 "2010-12-12T05:24:23Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > “Declining” religious affiliation hardly means that interest in the subject of whether there is any kind of existence that persists beyond death has dwindled to a few outliers: > > About [three quarters](http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/607/Public-Opinion-About-Life-Death-LIFE-AFTER-DEATH.html) of Americans seem to believe. I did not say that just “a few outliers” believe in an afterlife. I disputed your claim that “just about everyone” has an “enormous interest” in the subject. Linking to a poll showing that 70% of those questioned believe in an afterlife doesn’t back your claim - even people with a limited degree of religious affiliation would give lip service to the idea of heaven/hell. It doesn’t mean they’re obsessed with the subject. **Stoid** , it’s obvious that you really, really _want_ to believe in life after death. You say you’re “95% sure” it doesn’t exist, but what’s holding you back are “near-death experiences”. Oddly, I ran into an online discussion this week of the phenomenon of the person who purports to be on the verge of complete acceptance of atheism, but is brought up short by some perception/phenomenon he can’t explain (in the example cited, the individual just couldn’t understand how the Krebs cycle could be anything but evidence of divine intervention. Oh, and he also brought up NDEs). 🙂 We’re not going to change **Stoid** ’s determination to find some way to accept the afterlife. We can’t prove it isn’t so nor convince her of the fallacy of insisting that we prove a negative, or that we’re not just nasty doubters trying to poop on her spiritual parade. > [@Stoid](#): > > From the [research](http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm) published in _The Lancet_, conducted by the cardiologist who initially was certain that all NDE was explainable via physical processes: > > The Lancet is a highly respected medical journal. They don’t print junk. On the contrary - [yes they do](http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3716). And now **Stoid** , having recapitulated virtually all the classic examples of wooist fallacious thinking, is resorting to the cherry-picked quote - where Einstein supposedly supports her views. Rest assured, Einstein never believed that personal anecdote was a valid substitute for critical thinking and evidence. Furthermore, he was an agnostic who [did not believe in an afterlife.](http://einsteinandreligion.com/eternlife.html) > [@Einstein](#): > > It is a good thing that this individual life has an end with all its conflicts and problems. … Those who brought about the belief that the individual continues to live after death must have been very sorry people indeed… > …nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death ; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. Oops. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/410 "2010-12-12T05:51:28Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Why do you think there has to be a reason? Because there is a reason for consciousness and there is a reason for the cosmos. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > That’s not why we can say that it’s certain there is no afterlife. We know here’s no afterlife because it’s physically impossible, not because it hasn’t been observed. What has been observed? What _can_ be observed? ---
**Author:** ![Light\_of\_Marduk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c67d28/32.png) [@Light\_of\_Marduk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Light_of_Marduk)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/411 "2010-12-12T06:05:01Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > That would not change what is physically possible in this universe. You’re right. Of course, that still doesn’t mean you personally (or any human for that matter) knows what is physically possible in this universe. Lot’s of physical phenomena we don’t understand as of yet (dark energy, dark matter, etc…), unless you’re claiming some type of divine revelation we should all accept as fact? > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It’s also a completely baseless hypothesis. No, it’s based in logic. If you can prove something is logically impossible, you ultimately prove that something is irrefutably impossible (without resorting to baseless implications of being omniscient in regards to the physical universe as you are so fond of doing). ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/412 "2010-12-12T06:06:19Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Ran across [this](http://www.near-death.com/experiences/articles001.html) interesting critique of Susan Blackmore’s book that includes some of the same things I’ve been trying to point out. It caught my attention because it says this right at the top, and echos this thread: > > The critique is very lengthy and detailed, and an excellent read if one is interested in this whole debate. It includes a response from Blackmore at the end, and this wonderful quote from Einstein: You’re citing a woo woo NDE website which is basically just whining and sniveling because a scientist doesn’t buy into their fantasies. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/413 "2010-12-12T06:07:23Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > Because there is a reason for consciousness and there is a reason for the cosmos. Cite? > [@](#): > > What has been observed? What _can_ be observed? This question is gibberish. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/414 "2010-12-12T06:09:02Z")
> [@Light\_of\_Marduk](#): > > You’re right. Of course, that still doesn’t mean you personally (or any human for that matter) knows what is physically possible in this universe. Sure we can. > [@](#): > > No, it’s based in logic. It’s based on nothing. Logic requires inferences from given predicates. There is no logical reason to infer a magical uber-sorceror as a creator of the universe. ---
**Author:** ![Light\_of\_Marduk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c67d28/32.png) [@Light\_of\_Marduk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Light_of_Marduk)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/415 "2010-12-12T06:24:33Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > We can know things to a virtual certainty, a practical certainty, a functional certainty. The level of certainty that consciousness is a physical part of the brain is the same as the certainty that the earth goes around the sun You know, I can run a CPM virtual machine (simulate an 8086) or an MS-DOS vm (simulate a 286… or 386 if I’m feeling fast) on this core 2 duo. I can run every state like it’s running on a physical substrate (whatever processor I choose) that it isn’t actually running on. I can emulate an atari 2600, or any number of various systems that I choose. Guess what? Something isn’t necessarily running on a physical 2600 just because something runs like it’s running on a 2600. I leave you to ponder Cee Lo Green’s comparison of a 2600 to an xbox. ---
**Author:** ![Light\_of\_Marduk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c67d28/32.png) [@Light\_of\_Marduk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Light_of_Marduk)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/416 "2010-12-12T06:31:31Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Sure we can. rofl.. You didn’t even read the statement remotely correctly… Nice. 😃 > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It’s based on nothing. Logic requires inferences from given predicates. There is no logical reason to infer a magical uber-sorceror as a creator of the universe. "If you can prove something is logically impossible, you ultimately prove that something is irrefutably impossible (without resorting to baseless implications of being omniscient in regards to the physical universe as you are so fond of doing). " Suppose you aren’t going to address any valid points since you lack the ability. Not that I expected you to. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/417 "2010-12-12T06:39:52Z")
> [@Light\_of\_Marduk](#): > > rofl.. You didn’t even read the statement remotely correctly… Nice. 😃 > > "If you can prove something is logically impossible, you ultimately prove that something is irrefutably impossible (without resorting to baseless implications of being omniscient in regards to the physical universe as you are so fond of doing). " > > Suppose you aren’t going to address any valid points since you lack the ability. Not that I expected you to. 😃 I am curious as to use of the 😃 smilie after accusing him of not being able to comprehend a statement, then again after accusing him of lacking the ability to address valid points. Did you perhaps mean to use :dubious: or maybe :(, or is this really how you get your jollies? ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/418 "2010-12-12T06:49:03Z")
Jeepers…there is some big question-askin’ going on out there! Damn strange considering that “science” has the answers all wrapped up and everything. Like [this](http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penrose-hameroff/fundamentality.html) bozo..Director Stuart Hameroff M.D. Professor Emeritus, Departments of Anesthesiology and Psychology University of Arizona. He’s got some really wacky ideas.. he needs to check in with the Dope to find out that he’s just wasting his time: (my comments in red) > [@](#): > > Is the Conscious Mind Subtly Linked to a Basic Level of the Universe? > > Summary > > Age-old battle lines over the puzzling (What’s so puzzling? He’s a scientist, he should know there are no puzzles…) nature of mental experience are shaping a modern resurgence in the study of consciousness. On one side are the long-dominant “physicalists” (reductionists, materialists, functionalists, computationalists. . ) who see consciousness as an \*\*emergent property \*\*of the brain’s neural networks (“brain = mind = computer”). On the alternative, rebellious side are those who see a necessary added ingredient: proto-conscious experience intrinsic to reality, perhaps understandable through modern physics (panpsychists, pan-experientialists, “funda-mentalists”). It is argued here that the physicalist premise alone is unable to solve completely the difficult issues of consciousness (e.g. experience, binding, pre-conscious conscious transition, non-computability and free will) and that to do so will require supplemental panpsychist/pan-experiential philosophy expressed in modern physics. In one such scheme proto-conscious experience is a basic property of physical reality accessible to a quantum process associated with brain activity. The proposed process is Roger Penrose’s objective reduction (OR), a self-organizing “collapse” of the quantum wave function related to instability at the most basic level of spacetime geometry. In the Penrose-Hameroff model of “orchestrated objective reduction” (“Orch OR”), OR quantum computation occurs in cytoskeletal microtubules within the brain’s neurons and links cognition with proto-conscious experience and Platonic values embedded in spacetime geometry. \*\*The basic idea is that consciousness involves brain activities coupled to self-organizing ripples in fundamental reality. \*\* This know-nothing fool is the Director of the [Center for Consciousness Studies](http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/) at the University of Arizona. The [Mission](http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/mission.htm): > [@](#): > > **The study of human consciousness is one of science’s last great frontiers**.(Huh? Don’t we know everything? What frontiers?) After being neglected for many years (i.e. during a period of dominance by behaviorism in psychology), interest in the science of consciousness exploded in the last decades, with much progress in neuroscience, psychology, philosophy, and other areas. The University of Arizona has been at the center of these developments. The 1994 Tucson conference on “Toward a Science of Consciousness” is widely regarded as a landmark event, and the subsequent series of biennial conferences in Tucson have attracted extraordinary interest. > [@](#): > > The Center is unique in its broad spectrum approach. Other groups tend focus either on cognitive neuroscience, philosophy or purely phenomenal experiential approaches, whereas the Center not only integrates these areas, but “thinks outside the box” of conventional wisdom which has thus far, at least, **failed to make significant breakthroughs**. Wait, the guy running the center for consciousness studies think there haven’t been any significant breakthroughs??? How can that be, _ **when science has conclusively shown that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain and that’s the end of it** _? > [@](#): > > Most scientists and philosophers **assume** (Wait…assume? What does he mean assume? What about the physics, the conclusively proven, the absolutes???)consciousness emerges from complex computation among brain neurons and synapses acting as indivisible bits, or information states. Penrose and I suggest that consciousness involves processes at deeper levels, specifically sequences of quantum computations (~40 per second) in structures called microtubules inside brain neurons. The quantum computations we propose link to neuronal-level activities, and are also ripples in fundamental spacetime geometry, the most basic level of the universe. > > One implication of our model relates to a possible \*\*scientific basis for secular spirituality \*\*(unrelated to any organized religious approach). I should say that Roger avoids discussion of such implications, but I’ve been willing to raise this possibility. > > For me, spirituality implies: > > [ul] > [li]Interconnectedness among living beings and the universe[/li][li]A ubiquitous reservoir of cosmic intelligence/Platonic values in touch with our conscious choices and perceptions[/li][li]_ **Existence of consciousness after death** _[/li][/ul] > Can these issues be accounted for scientifically? I believe they possibly can. > … > > Conscious existence after death – In my view, consciousness occurs at the level of Planck scale geometry amplified to quantum coherence/computation in brain microtubules. When metabolic requirements for quantum coherence in brain microtubules are lost (e.g. death, near-death), quantum information pertaining to that individual may persist and remain entangled in Planck scale geometry. > > **Taken as a whole, these ideas may be considered a plausibility argument for scientific, secular spirituality.** > > … > Our theory also chafes proponents of artificial intelligence (“AI”, including advocates of the so-called Singularity) who assume consciousness results from interactions among neurons with no consideration of deeper activities or quantum mechanisms. Along these lines I recently spoke at Google in Silicon Valley, my talk being titled A new marriage of brain and computer – Why the Singularity is bogus. That talk is at > [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2069501759514424839](http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2069501759514424839) > > I am not by nature confrontational, but am happy to debate scientists and philosophers who oppose our theory. Atheism does not hold the scientific high ground. **Secular spirituality based on quantum biology and the physics of spacetime geometry is a viable and important idea. I am not offering or suggesting any proof, just a plausibility argument.** That seems pointless, why doesn’t he just check in with the **Dopers Who Know:** > [@Steophan](#): > > The reason one can accurately say that everyone who’s looked for an afterlife has failed is that an afterlife is impossible.\*\* Consciousness cannot survive the destruction of the brain\*\*, > [@Steophan](#): > > **What I can do, and have, done, is show that an afterlife is impossible.** > [@Steophan](#): > > I’ve explained, several times, why the afterlife isn’t and you have yet to comment on that. It’s not me that’s arguing in bad faith here. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > In the case of “afterlife” beliefs, it’s not just lack of evidence, **but actual proof of impossibility**. We can _prove_ consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, therefore it can’t exist without a brain. QED. > [@in\_hiding](#): > > RAll this proves that we **are** our brains beyond reasonable doubt. Not all doubt, but reasonable doubt. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Not a good analogy. **Life on other planets is a physical possibility. Surviving consciousness is not**. Positing an afterlife is positing magic, and all magic is equally implausible. > [@Nicest\_of\_the\_Damned](#): > > **Isn’t it possible that there is some kind of survival of bodily death that is not magic or an act of God, it’s a natural process based on science we can’t grasp yet?** > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > \*\*No, it’s not possible. \*\* > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > There is no theoretical possibility by which they can exist. > [@Fatwater\_Fewl](#): > > Neuroscience provides **the hard evidence** for the assertion made by previous posters that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain; Since this is so, we can state confidently that consciousness ends with the death of brain. No room for an afterlife there. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > We can and have determined that all human consciouness is an emergent property of the physical brain. \*\*\*There is no other consciousness. \*\*\* > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No, it isn’t plausible, because it isn’t physically possible. The thing you don’t seem to be able to grasp is the complete inseparability of consciousness from the neurogical activity of the brain. The meat IS the consciousness.\*\* This is a proven fact. \*\*Consciousness cannot exist without a physical medium to produce, hold and perpetuate it. Positing that maybe our brains don’t really cause consciouness is like positing, for no reason, that maybe we don’t really see with our eyes. It’s just as ridiculous. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > This is incorrect. The proof lies in the fact that we know with an absolute certainty that consciousness is an emergent property of the physical brain and cannot exist or continue without it. There’s no mystery about it. \*\*It’s pure physics. \*\* > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Actually there is such a test. If there was evidence that our brain was interacting with something we can’t detect directly, that the brain was sending data and receiving it from something invisible then that would be evidence for some kind of soul-ish _something_ existing. But souls fail that test, …Magic, in other words. > [@Lobohan](#): > > How can anyone postulate they exist when there is exactly zero evidence for it and it defies everything we know about physics? > [@Lobohan](#): > > No. You are suggesting that something that flies in the face of the evidence that we do have. You are doing it with no evidence. That’s simply a worthless argument. > > Suggesting that _maybe_, \*somehow \*we will \*someday \*have the technology to explain the thing _you have no evidence for_ is beyond weak. Well, considering how conclusively irrefutably proven the Doper Pronouncements are, it seems a terrible waste for all these people to bee spending all this time. Maybe we can stop the upcoming conference? > [@](#): > > ``` > ** TOWARD A SCIENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS > STOCKHOLM 2011 MAY 2-8, 2011 ** > > ``` > > 1. CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE UNIVERSE: > Is consciousness an epiphenomenal happenstance of this one particular universe among multitudes, as proposed in M-theory by Hawking and Mlodinow? Or are consciousness and intelligence intrinsic to the fabric of reality? > > DEEPAK CHOPRA, Chopra Foundation, Vedic approaches to consciousness and reality > LEONARD MLODINOW, Physicist and Author > PAOLA ZIZZI, Padua, Consciousness in the early universe > > 1. CONSCIOUSNESS, REALITY AND THE UNIVERSE: > Does the conscious observer collapse the wave function? Is consciousness an emergent property of complex computation, or irreducible and intrinsically related to spacetime geometry? How did the universe arise from nothingness? What is entanglement? > > MENAS KAFATOS, Chapman University, The holographic universe > TARJA-KALLIO-TAMMINEN, Helsinki, Quantum physics and Eastern philosophy > PAAVO PYLKKANEN, Helsinki, Bohm and the quantum universe > HARALD ATMANSPACHER, Freiburg > > 1. END-OF-LIFE BRAIN ACTIVITY: > Recent clinical studies report a surge of coherent, high frequency EEG at the time of human death, when neuronal metabolic supplies are depleted. Historically, nearly all civilizations have reported so-called near death experiences with remarkably consistent phenomenology. Have brain monitors captured the correlate of near death experiences? > > LAKHMIR CHAWLA, George Washington, End-of-life brain activity > PETER FENWICK, London, End-of-life conscious experience > HENRIK EHRSSON, Karolinska, Induced out-of-body illusions > PIM VAN LOMMEL, Arnhem, Near death experiences > > 1. THE VARIETIES OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE: > Since William James, meaning, values, intentionality, feelings and imagery related to religious experience have been part of consciousness studies. Modern imaging reveals brain regions active during religious experience, and sacramental plants are used to promote spiritual states > > Organizing Committee (partial list) > Stuart Hameroff, University of Arizona, co-chair > Christer Perfjell, Perfjell Wellness Center, Mind Event SA, co-chair > Paavo Pylkkanen, University of Helsinki > Peter Århem, Karolinska Institute > Deepak Chopra, Chopra Center > Hartmut Neven, Google > Henrik Ehrsson, Karolinska Institute > Gustav Bernroider, University of Salzburg > Hans Liljenstrom, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Agora for Biosystems > Adrian Parker, University of Gothenburg > Annekatrine Puhle, University of Gothenburg > Etzel Cardena, Lund University > Alexander Moreira-Almeida MD, PhD (Brazil) > Nildson Alvares-Muniz, Uniceub- Centro Universitário de Brasília > Michal Gruberger, Tel Aviv University > Maureen Ann Seaberg, Author, New York > Abi Behar-Montefiore (University of Arizona-CCS) > Email Conference Manager > > - Illustration: Dave Cantrell, AHSC > Biomedical Communications Surely one of you folks can straighten these poor misguided people out? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/419 "2010-12-12T06:58:22Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Surely one of you folks can straighten these poor misguided people out? One of their headliners is Deepak Chopra. There is nothing we can do to straighten them out. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/420 "2010-12-12T06:58:56Z")
There are some aggressively shut down minds here, and that’s fine. But in terms of the world at large, and particularly the scientific community, the researchers, the doctors, the physicists - well, as a group they do not take the same view that the Dopers Who Know do, and that was the point of my OP: we do not have an agreed-upon truth that has been overwhelmingly approved by the vast majority of the people who are really examining the question. THEY do not speak in the absolutes that the Dopers Who Know do. So, one last time: it’s not accurate to say: There is no afterlife. It’s not accurate to say: there is an afterlife. It’s only accurate to say what your opinion is and then explain why. (And by the way, your Supreme Knowingness would be SO much more interesting and impressive if you could show that it came from ANYWHERE other than your own nether regions. Really, this aggressive “I AM TELLING YOU WHAT REALITY IS” stuff is pretty laughable, guys. And frankly, no matter what the background information says or doesn’t say, the fact that so many of you DO have that degree of arrogance and complete disinterest in making the tiniest effort to support your assertions automatically downgrades any argument you make. It’s kinda bizarre, actually.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876.md?page=22)