Outline of the Essay
2.1. Transformation.
2.2. What happens to any animal when it dies?
2.4. Heaven and Hell?
2.5. The Immortal Soul?
2.6. The Mind-Brain is Part of the Body.
2.7. Near-Death Experiences.
2.8. Dealing with Mortality.
2.9. The Christian "Death" of the Ego.
2.10. Kurt Vonnegut’s “Tralfamadorian” view of Death.
2.1. Transformation. What happens when we die? Transformation. And the same things happen when we die that have been happening while we live(d): the sun ‘rises’ and ‘sets,’ people play ‘happy’ and sad ‘roles,’ organisms eat, lots of energy is interchanged, ... but now without the pretense and without the illusion that we are somehow separate, independent beings. That temporarily relatively self-ish ego dissipates and our biological systems dis-integrate.
2.2. What happens to any animal when it dies?
The answer to the question "What happens when we die?" is observable in nature. Animals and other living things decompose when they die. They decay into their component parts. They dissipate into the world around them.
Humans are animals too. The fact that we are a different species does not change what happens to us when we die. The persona decays into component parts. Parts and aspects of ‘individuals’ live on in memories, memorials, and memes.
* "Humans are animals too" -- The word "animal" is a Latin word which means "breathing thing." Anything that breathes is an "animal." The root is "anima" -- wind, breath. Air is made of atoms. Breathing things -- animals -- are made of atoms.
One's genes have usually been copied and live in other forms – children, grandchildren. To whatever extent people identify with their genes, they can sometimes have quite long lives, as they are living in successive generations of biological descendants.
A person's thoughts/ideas, character traits, habits can also often have very long lives in other people, as memes, as patterns taken up by many different forms.
More on memes at http://www.xanga.com/WindOnReed2/563506736/memes.html .
2.3. Physical immortality:
It may be the case (?) that within 100 years scientific advances will enable bodily life to be prolonged indefinitely. Another possibility is that the brain will eventually be digitizable, enabling people to create electronic doubles and even for these doubles to live on a large internet.
“The Future Is Now? Pretty Soon, at Least.” (Re: Ray Kurzweil; Singularity; Human-Computer Integration). 2008-06-04. http://www.xanga.com/WindOnReed2/660010290/the-future-is-now-pretty-soon-at-least.html .
“Transhumans and Immortalists.” 2008-03-11. http://www.xanga.com/WindOnReed2/646582702/transhumans-and-immortalists.html .
“Human-Computer Integration.” (2 articles: Monkeys control machines with their minds; Robot soldier.) http://www.xanga.com/WindOnReed2/659246701/human-computer-integration.html .
Memory Implant Gives Rats Sharper Recollection," by Benedict Carey, New York Times, Science section, June 17, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/science/17memory.html.
"Transcendent Man," which is available by instant streaming on Netflix and/or can be downloaded through i-tunes as well. It's a 2009 documentary, 83 minutes, about the life and ideas of Ray Kurzweil and the implications of his ideas for the future. It covers his detractors as well as his supporters. A bit short, but it's a good intro to the topic. http://transcendentman.com/.
"IBM Thinks about the Next 100 Years," MSNBC News, June 15, 2011, http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/15/6868882-ibm-thinks-about-the-next-100-years.
"Transcendence" (2014), starring Johnny Depp, Rebecca Hall, and Morgan Freeman, directed by Wally Pfister, and written by Jack Paglen, is an excellent film embodying some of the ideas of Ray Kurzweil.
"As Dr. Will Caster works toward his goal of creating an omniscient, sentient machine, a radical anti-technology organization fights to prevent him from establishing a world where computers can transcend the abilities of the human brain." http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2209764/ .
2.4. Heaven and hell:
Heaven and hell (as literally, not poetically, conceived) are superstitions going back at least as far as the Egyptians of the 3rd millennium BCE and shared by many subsequent cultures and religions around the world, each culture/religion putting its own twists on the ideas. Heavens and hells exist as ideas in the brains of certain humans, but not in the places or manner they were thought to exist by the literal-minded among the ancients, who generally thought heaven and God(s) were up in the sky and hell was directly beneath the earth in a geocentric universe with a stationary earth. Scientific discovers about our solar system, galaxy, and universe should have driven such superstitious notions of heaven and hell from people's minds, but such ideas or various permutations of them still survive among large numbers of people.
2.5. The Immortal Soul?:
The idea of the immortal soul also goes back at least as far as ancient Egypt of the 3rd millennium BCE. This idea, too, was adapted and modified by many subsequent cultures and religions, including Christianity. The original development of the concepts of “soul” and “spirit” was based on primitive reasoning that is now outdated.
Understanding the history behind the terms “soul” and “spirit” reveals some problems. In the ancient societies from which we derive our ideas of soul and spirit, the words for “soul” and/or “spirit” are exactly the same words that were used to refer to air, wind, breath. Why?
Ancient people believed in cause and effect. Sometimes causes and effects were visible, sometimes not. Cultures developed linguistic terms to indicate things/forces which were invisible to the naked eye, yet were still discernable from their effects – like thoughts, breath, and air/wind.
One of the questions they attempted to answer was, “What makes people/animals alive?” “What makes us move and think and act?” People noticed that when someone dies, he/she stops breathing. Thus, they concluded that the invisible breath/wind was what made them alive AND conscious. This was the case for the Jews, Greeks, and Romans from whom we have derived our ideas, and this becomes obvious when we study their languages.
Romans:
"Spirit" comes from Latin (Roman) spiritus (breathing, breath, breeze). The verb form is spiro, spirare – to breathe. We see it in our word “respiration,” breathing. The Romans had another word, animus, which we also sometimes translate as "spirit" or “mind.” Animus is from anima (wind, breath). We see it in our word “animal,” literally a breathing thing. The Greek word anemos also meant wind.
Hebrews/Jews:
The Hebrews had a word nephesh (something that breathes) from their word naphash (to breathe). The ancient Hebrews believed that man was dirt which El/Yahweh had shaped and breathed the air of life into:
Man = dirt + wind/breath/air (see Genesis or Ecclesiastes).
Hebrew has another word, ruwach, which meant "wind" and by association "breath." This wind/breath/ruwach blew the leaves and the clouds and gave people thoughts and emotions. When you see the word "spirit" in the English Old Testament, it is really the Hebrew word “ruwach.” In fact, even every time you read the word "wind" in the English version of the Old Testament, it is really the exact same Hebrew word, ruwach!! The ancient Hebrews made NO linguistic distinctions at all between the wind that blows locusts (Ex. 10:13), and clouds (1 Kg. 18:45), and dust (Ps. 18:42), or the wind that we breathe, and the wind that they thought was responsible for thoughts and emotions like jealousy (Num. 5:30), wisdom (Ex. 28:3), anguish (Ex. 6:9), anger (Ecc. 7:9), a troubled mind (Job 21:4). They thought that all of these phenomena were caused by the mysterious wind force – invisible air. And some came to believe that air was "non-physical" simply because they could not see it.
Greeks:
The New Testament contains two important Greek words relevant to our discussion: psyche and pneuma. The English translated psyche as “soul,” and pneuma as “spirit.” But this might be misleading. Psyche is Greek for "breath", from the Greek verb psychein (to breathe, blow air). We see it in our word "psychology", because the Greeks over time decided that our air/breath was also responsible for our thinking ability (like the ancient Hebrews). Pneuma means "a blowing, a breeze, wind, blast, breath, odor" and comes from Greek pneo (to blow, breathe). In fact, the Greek word for your lungs was pneumon. We see it in our word pneumonia.
What is the point? My point is that we now know that air (spiritus, anima, ruwach, psyche, pneuma) is made of the same stuff as our bodies and everything else. Just because air is invisible does not mean it is of some separate substance. We also know that air, our breath, is not of itself alone the thing that allows us to think and feel emotions. The ancients had a flawed basis for assuming that the seen and the unseen were two separate substances. Nobody ever should have developed the notion that the mind is some “non-physical” thing.
2.6. The mind-brain is part of the body: If by “soul” someone means “that which thinks,” then this “soul” does exist and is a physical part of the body.
The mind is best described as a physical thing; emotions and thinking are physical, chemical, electrical processes of energy transference. Seeing, feeling, smelling, tasting, hearing, and thinking are all physical processes with which the mind is involved. The most ready conclusion is that the mind is a physical part of our body which shares in the physical processes of the body.
Sample argument against the idea that the mind is not physical:
The mind includes thoughts, perceptions, will, emotions, memory.
Chemicals, food, drugs, and electricity influence/affect thoughts, perceptions, will, emotions, memory.
Therefore, chemicals, food, drugs, and electricity influence/affect the mind.
For there to be interaction/influence between two things, they must have something in common, a common aspect to their nature, or one could not touch, move, influence, affect, sense, or in any way be aware of the other.
Mind must have something in common with chemicals, food, drugs, and electricity.
Chemicals, food, drugs, and electricity are called “physical.”
Mind has something in common with physicality, and it, therefore, cannot not be a substance truly separate from the physical world.
If you take a certain drug, it will change your thinking process. Chemicals can and do make you feel love, affection, sadness, happiness, indifference, pleasure, pain. Why? Because you are made of chemicals. Drugs can cause you to see and hear things that other people do not see or hear. Why? Because they are chemicals, and you are chemicals.
[Books on DMT, Ketamine, LSD, psilocybin, and such are fascinating. A few recommendations:
DMT: The Spirit Molecule: A Doctor's Revolutionary Research into the Biology of Near-Death and Mystical Experiences, by Rick Strassman MD. (2000)
Ketamine: Dreams and Realities, by Karl Jansen. (2004)
The Doors of Perception (1954) and Heaven and Hell (1956), by Aldous Huxley. Two famous essays, available together from Perennial Classics. Paperback. (2004)]
If thinking were a “spiritual,” “non-physical” process, then why would physical chemicals affect your thoughts or even destroy them? Depressed or manic people can take pills to change their mood, their temperament, because mood and temperament are physical conditions.
Our thinking starts to deteriorate at the same time as our brain starts to deteriorate in old age. As people’s brains decay, their memory and thoughts decay also.
[I’ve seen my own grandfather die with Alzheimer’s recently. Even before the end, there was not much left of his personality to survive death, even if it hypothetically could. But even apart from Alzheimer’s cases, one can observe the decay of thought processes, the disintegration of the mind-body, the self, the ego, before the process of death is even finished.]
In the same way, our mind and thoughts grow and develop as the rest of our body grows and develops. The health of the body and the health of the mind are so interrelated because the mind is not separate from the body, but is a part of the body. If you start poking holes in your brain, do you think your thoughts will go on as normal because they are really spiritual? If you do, I dare you to try it and prove me wrong.
Dogs, cats, monkeys, and other animals have thoughts and emotions too, even if they are not quite as complex because of genetic differences in their DNA. Yet many Christians deny that animals have souls. Why?
[Elephants seem to be aware and mournful of death and the visible bones of dead relatives in the place where those relatives died have an observable emotional effect on elephants.
· http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1526287/Elephants-show-compassion-in-face-of-death.html
· http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8209
· http://www.pulseplanet.com/dailyprogram/dailies.php?POP=1868
· http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1227900.stm
Chimpanzees, dolphins, and elephants appear to be the closest to humans in their thoughts and emotions. Chimpanzees’ brains seem to be developed to the level of a very young human. Note, too, that the capabilities (and/or IQs) of various human brains differ widely within our species. Of course, those humans who are least capable mentally are often considered diseased or handicapped, but even they are still a natural percentage of our species.
Related:
· “Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior,” NYT, Dr. de Waar, http://www.xanga.com/WindOnReed2/666217096/beginnings-of-morality-in-primate-behavior-nyt.html . 2008-07-15. ]
Since the rest of the body cannot survive even if the mind/will desires it to, this shows that the mind/will is not ultimately more powerful than the body, but it only part of it, and ultimately the weaker part since the rest of the body obviously decays despite the mind /will. Since the body decays, despite being stronger, why should one imagine that the even weaker mind/will has power to survive apart from the rest of its body?
The Scottish philosopher David Hume addressed these issues in his essay, "The Immortality of the Soul" (1783). Let me share the highlights of the "Physical Arguments" portion of his essay, having put certain parts in bold font.
THE Physical arguments from the analogy of nature are strong for the mortality of the soul, and are really the only philosophical arguments which ought to be admitted with regard to this question, or indeed any question of fact.
-- Where any two objects are so closely connected that all alterations which we have ever seen in the one, are attended with proportionable alterations in the other; we ought to conclude by all rules of analogy, that, when there are still greater alterations produced in the former, and it is totally dissolved, there follows a total dissolution of the latter.
-- Sleep, a very small effect on the body, is attended with a temporary extinction, at least a great confusion in the soul.
-- The weakness of the body and that of the mind in infancy are exactly proportioned, their vigour in manhood, their sympathetic disorder in sickness; their common gradual decay in old age. The step further seems unavoidable; their common dissolution in death. The last symptoms which the mind discovers are disorder, weakness, insensibility, and stupidity, the fore-runners of its annihilation. The farther progress of the same causes encreasing, the same effects totally extinguish it.
Judging by the usual analogy of nature, no form can continue when transferred to a condition of life very different from the original one, in which it was placed. Trees perish in the water, fishes in the air, animals in the earth. Even so small a difference as that of climate is often fatal. What reason then to imagine, that an immense alteration, such as is made on the soul by the dissolution of its body and all its organs of thought and sensation, can be effected without the dissolution of the whole?
Every thing is in common betwixt soul and body. The organs of the one are all of them the organs of the other. The existence therefore of the one must be dependant on that of the other.
-- The souls of animals are allowed to be mortal; and these bear so near a resemblance to the souls of men, that the analogy from one to the other forms a very strong argument. Their bodies are not more resembling; yet no one rejects the argument drawn from comparative anatomy. . . .
NOTHING in this world is perpetual, every thing however seemingly firm is in continual flux and change, the world itself gives symptoms of frailty and dissolution. How contrary to analogy, therefore, to imagine that one single form, seemingly the frailest of any, and subject to the greatest disorders, is immortal and indissoluble? . . .
Our insensibility before the composition of the body, seems to natural reason a proof of a like state after dissolution. [Let me, MJK, paraphrase Hume here: We had no mind before we were conceived as babies, so why should we think we would have a mind after we die?] . . .
For as nature does nothing in vain, she would never give us a horror against an impossible event. . . .
All doctrines are to be suspected which are favoured by our passions, and the hopes and fears which gave rise to this doctrine are very obvious.
(Hume, David. Essays on Suicide and the Immortality of the Soul. The Complete 1783 Edition. Typed and posted on-line by James Fieser, 1995, http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/suicide.htm#A5.)
The following is a more modern summary of empirical evidence for the dependence of the consciousness on the brain, again with certain segments in bold font.
Barry Beyerstein points out that the view "that consciousness is inseparable from the functioning of individual brains remains the cornerstone of physiological psychology" (Beyerstein 44). This is due, he says, to "the theory's parsimony and research productivity, the range of phenomena accounted for, and the lack of credible counter-evidence" (45).
Beyerstein lists five main types of empirical evidence which support the dependence of consciousness on the brain. First, phylogenetic evidence refers to the evolutionary relationship between the complexity of the brain and a species' cognitive traits (Beyerstein 45). Corliss Lamont sums up this evidence: "We find that the greater the size of the brain and its cerebral cortex in relation to the animal body and the greater their complexity, the higher and more versatile the form of life" (Lamont 63). Second, the developmental evidence for mind-brain dependence is that mental abilities emerge with the development of the brain; failure in brain development prevents mental development (Beyerstein 45). Third, clinical evidence consists of cases of brain damage that result from accidents, toxins, diseases, and malnutrition that often result in irreversible losses of mental functioning (45). If the mind could exist independently of the brain, why couldn't the mind compensate for lost faculties when brain cells die after brain damage? (46). Fourth, the strongest empirical evidence for mind-brain dependence is derived from experiments in neuroscience. Mental states are correlated with brain states; electrical or chemical stimulation of the human brain invokes perceptions, memories, desires, and other mental states (45). Finally, the experiential evidence for mind-brain dependence consists of the effects of several different types of drugs which predictably affect mental states (45).
(This summary of Beyerstein's work is from Keith Augustine's essay, “The Case Against Immortality,” Skeptic Magazine Vol. 5, No. 2, 1997. Expanded version on-line at Infidels.org, http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/immortality.html. He cites Beyerstein, Barry L. "The Brain and Consciousness: Implications for Psi Phenomena," In The Hundredth Monkey, Edited Kendrick Frazier, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1991: 43-53. The citation of Lamont refers to Lamont, Corliss, The Illusion of Immortality, 5th ed., New York: Unger/Continuum, 1990.)
Keith Augustine writes more about memory, neurons, electrical and chemical stimulation, clinical evidence from "split-brain" patients, "brain pacemakers" for psychotic patients, Schizophrenia, and Alzheimer's disease here:
Memory is essential to self-identity. Electrical or chemical stimulation of the brain can prevent the formation of new memories and cause memory loss for events that occurred up to three years before such intervention (Stokes 71). Neuroscientists have accumulated a considerable amount of evidence that long-term memory traces "are dependent upon, and perhaps consist of, changes in the strengths of synaptic connections among neurons" (Stokes 73). Lamont argues that because:
The proper functioning of memory ... depends ... on the associational patterns laid down as enduring structural imprints through means of interneuronic connections ... it is difficult beyond measure to understand how they could survive after the destruction of the living brain in which they had their original locus (Lamont 76).
Further experimental evidence for mind-brain dependence is derived from "split-brain" patients who have undergone an operation that severs the corpus callosum to reduce epileptic seizures (Beyerstein 45). The corpus callosum is a broad band of fibers that directly connect the left and right hemispheres of the brain. If information is only presented to one hemisphere of a "split-brain" patient, the other hemisphere is unaware of it and is not capable of understanding the reactions of the informed hemisphere (45). The result of "split-brain" surgery is the formation of two mental systems, each with independent mental attributes (45). A variety of psychological tests corroborate the existence of two streams of consciousness demonstrably unaware of the contents of the other (Parfit 248). To give a humorous example, "one of the patients complained that sometimes, when he embraced his wife, his left hand pushed her away" (Parfit 249). Beyerstein asks: "If a 'free-floating' mind exists, why can't it maintain unity of consciousness by providing an information conduit between the disconnected hemispheres?" (Beyerstein 46).
One of the strongest arguments for mind-brain dependence comes from the effects of "brain pacemakers" which electrically stimulate the cerebellum in the brains of psychotics (Hooper and Teresi 154). The following case illustrates these effects:
Another patient, a severely depressed former physicist, was troubled by voices that commanded him to choke his wife. When he got one of Dr. Heath's pacemakers in 1977, the infernal voices vanished, along with his perennial gloom ... But his wires eventually broke, and once again his wife was threatened with strangulation. When the gadgetry was mended, so was the man's psyche (Hooper and Teresi 155).
These are just a few examples from neuroscience of the dependence of consciousness on the brain. We know that altering the brain's chemistry can cause drastic personality changes. Schizophrenia and Alzheimer's disease are dramatic examples of mind-brain dependence. If you are thinking of suicide, don't go to a psychiatrist, go to a pharmacologist: A combination of an antidepressant and tryptophan should banish all thoughts of ending your life (Hooper and Teresi 171).
(Keith Augustine, “The Case Against Immortality,” Skeptic Magazine Vol. 5, No. 2, 1997. Expanded version on-line at Infidels.org, http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/immortality.html. Citing the following sources:
Beyerstein, Barry L. "The Brain and Consciousness: Implications for Psi Phenomena," In The Hundredth Monkey, Edited Kendrick Frazier, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1991: 43-53.
Hooper, Judith, and Dick Teresi. The Three-Pound Universe. New York: Tarcher/Perigee Books, 1992.
Lamont, Corliss, The Illusion of Immortality, 5th ed., New York: Unger/Continuum, 1990.
Parfit, Derrick. "The Psychological View." In Self and Identity. Edited Daniel Kolak and Raymond Martin. New York: Macmillan, 1991.
Stokes, D. M. "Mind, Matter, and Death: Cognitive Neuroscience and the Problem of Survival." Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research. January 1993: 41-84.
Conclusion:
There is no reason to conclude that people have a “non-physical” soul or spirit which is not made of the same stuff that makes up everything else. There is no reason to imagine that people are immortal and continue ever to sense and think after death. Seeing, feeling, smelling, tasting, hearing, and thinking are all physical processes, and have not been shown to be otherwise. Our bodies/brains can sense light and objects because both the sensor and the sensed are physical. If our minds were not made of ‘matter,’ or of that which also makes up matter, they would have no way to sense or contact material things. And minds are obviously able to interact with the rest of the body; so if minds were immortal, then we could reasonably expect the minds of dead bodies to continue to speak to us through living bodies. I have never seen this happen. I think that if my grandfather were still alive after death, he would love me enough to speak to me.
For more on the soul, here are some links:
Churchland, Patricia S. Touching a Nerve: The Self as Brain. (2013, W. W. Norton & Company, 304 pp.)
"What happens when we accept that everything we feel and think stems not from an immaterial spirit but from electrical and chemical activity in our brains? In this thought-provoking narrative—drawn from professional expertise as well as personal life experiences—trailblazing neurophilosopher Patricia S. Churchland grounds the philosophy of mind in the essential ingredients of biology. She reflects with humor on how she came to harmonize science and philosophy, the mind and the brain, abstract ideals and daily life.
"Offering lucid explanations of the neural workings that underlie identity, she reveals how the latest research into consciousness, memory, and free will can help us reexamine enduring philosophical, ethical, and spiritual questions: What shapes our personalities? How do we account for near-death experiences? How do we make decisions? And why do we feel empathy for others? Recent scientific discoveries also provide insights into a fascinating range of real-world dilemmas—for example, whether an adolescent can be held responsible for his actions and whether a patient in a coma can be considered a self.
"Churchland appreciates that the brain-based understanding of the mind can unnerve even our greatest thinkers. At a conference she attended, a prominent philosopher cried out, “I hate the brain; I hate the brain!” But as Churchland shows, he need not feel this way. Accepting that our brains are the basis of who we are liberates us from the shackles of superstition. It allows us to take ourselves seriously as a product of evolved mechanisms, past experiences, and social influences. And it gives us hope that we can fix some grievous conditions, and when we cannot, we can at least understand them with compassion."
Review on Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Touching-Nerve-The-Self-Brain/dp/0393058328 .
“Science of the Soul.” NYTimes. 2007-06-26. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/26soul.html .
"Memory Implant Gives Rats Sharper Recollection," by Benedict Carey, New York Times, Science section, June 17, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/science/17memory.html.
"the implant demonstrates for the first time that a cognitive function can be improved with a device that mimics the firing patterns of neurons. In recent years neuroscientists have developed implants that allow paralyzed people to move prosthetic limbs or a computer cursor, using their thoughts to activate the machines. In the new work, being published Friday, researchers at Wake Forest University and the University of Southern California used some of the same techniques to read neural activity. But they translated those signals internally, to improve brain function rather than to activate outside appendages."
"Monkeys control robots with their minds," CNN, May 28, 2008, http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/05/29/monkey.robots/index.html
(CNN) -- "Scientists have trained a group of monkeys to feed themselves marshmallows using a robot arm controlled by sensors implanted in their brains, a feat that could one day help paralyzed people operate prosthetic limbs on their own ..."
“Human-Computer Integration.” (2 articles: Monkeys control machines with their minds; Robot soldier.) http://www.xanga.com/WindOnReed2/659246701/human-computer-integration.html .
A blog post on neuroscience. “Move Over Evolution.” Aug 17th, 2008. By Rodrigo Neely. The Edger. http://www.xanga.com/WindOnReed2/672702117/the-edger---neuroscience.html, or http://theedger.org/2008/08/17/move-over-evolution/.
An old post of mine called “Choices,” about the brain, consciousness, and determinism. http://www.xanga.com/WindOnReed2/604121252/choices.html.
Secular essays and posts on the topic of the soul. Go to http://www.infidels.org/ , and type “soul” in the search box.
www.ted.com has interesting 20-minute lecture on this topic by various leaders in the field.
2.7. Near-Death Experiences (NDEs), Out-of-Body Experiences (OBEs), visions, etc.:
2.7.1. These experiences are usually dependent on one's culture.
Millions of Americans and people from all around the world have reported NDEs. You have probably heard the stories. "There was a bright light, and there was such a wonderful feeling of peace. ... " There is not really any feature that appears in every NDE without exception, but light and peace are quite common, esp. in the West. With the exception of certain common features, like light and feelings of peace, the actual content of a NDE depends upon one’s culture and the ideas in one’s mind. Christians may (but do not always) claim to see Jesus or angels. Muslims have claimed to see light or angels, which are part of the Islamic tradition as well. People from east Asia often see flowers and rivers. Thai people often think they meet Yamatoots, messengers of the god of death Yama. Hindus have thought they encountered gods from their own pantheon. Native Americans have believed they have met their grandfathers/ancestors in the sky. In cultures that believe in reincarnation, people have NDEs, OBEs (out-of-body experiences), and visions that lend support to those beliefs. In the 4th century BCE, the Greek philosopher Plato wrote about a man named Er who shared his NDE concerning the afterlife and reincarnation (Republic 10.614-10.621). The very fact that the content is so dependent on culture argues that the experiences are in the brain, not in a real "spirit realm."
2.7.2. These experiences and/or similar experiences can be chemically induced.
Similar or comparable NDEs, OBEs (out-of-body experiences), and visions can be induced by Ketamine, DMT, and other chemical and physical means. See, e.g.,
Rick Strassman. DMT: The Spirit Molecule: A Doctor's Revolutionary Research into the Biology of Near-Death and Mystical Experiences. 2000.
Karl Jansen. Ketamine: Dreams and Realities. 2004.
2.7.3. Keith Augustine has written a very good essay outlining the evidence that NDEs are hallucinatory. Rather than repeat everything he and others have already shown, let me provide the outlined points and a link to his essay.
Keith Augustine, "Hallucinatory Near-Death Experiences" (2003, Updated 2008). http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/HNDEs.html.
Even if we disregard the overwhelming evidence for the dependence of consciousness on the brain, there remains strong evidence from reports of near-death experiences themselves that NDEs are not glimpses of an afterlife. This evidence includes:
discrepancies between what is seen in the out-of-body component of an NDE and what's actually happening in the physical world;
bodily sensations incorporated into the NDE, either as they are or experienced as NDE imagery;
encountering living persons during NDEs;
the greater variety of differences than similarities between different NDEs, where specific details of NDEs generally conform to cultural expectation;
the typical randomness or insignificance of the memories retrieved during those few NDEs that include a life review;
NDEs where the experiencer makes a decision not to return to life by crossing a barrier or threshold viewed as a 'point of no return,' but is restored to life anyway;
hallucinatory imagery in NDEs, including encounters with mythological creatures and fictional characters; and
the failure of predictions in those instances in which experiencers report seeing future events during NDEs or gaining psychic abilities after them.
2.7.4. Here is a link to a brief post I made, "The Ben Breedlove Video and Near-Death Experiences."
2.7. Source List on Near-Death Experiences and Similar Phenomena:
“Hallucinatory Near-Death Experiences” (2003, updated 2008), by Keith Augustine, http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/HNDEs.html. A well-written inquiry with numerous scholarly sources cited.
G.M. Woerlee. “Darkness, Tunnels, and Light.” Skeptical Inquirer, Vol 28.3, May/June 2004. http://www.csicop.org/si/show/darkness_tunnels_and_light/.
“near-death experience (NDE).” The Skeptic’s Dictionary. http://www.skepdic.com/nde.html. Good article with links and resources.
“Decoding The Mystery Of Near-Death Experiences,” by Barbara Bradley Hagerty, NPR: All Things Considered, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104397005.
“Near-Death Experiences Explained.” by Benjamin Radford, Discovery News, Sep 23, 2011. http://news.discovery.com/human/-neuroscience-explains-near-death-110923.html.
"Near Death Experiences Explained? Bright lights, angelic visions products of too much CO2 in the blood, study says," by James Owen, National Geographic News, April 8, 2010, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100408-near-death-experiences-blood-carbon-dioxide/.
Jill Bolte Taylor, “How it feels to have a stroke.” A 20 min. TED presentation/video, now on YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU.
This scientist talks about the feeling of oneness with the universe that she experienced during her stroke.
“Neuroanatomist Jill Bolte Taylor had an opportunity few brain scientists would wish for: One morning, she realized she was having a massive stroke. As it happened -- as she felt her brain functions slip away one by one, speech, movement, understanding -- she studied and remembered every moment. This is a powerful story about how our brains define us and connect us to the world and to one another.”
2.8. Dealing with Mortality/Death:
2.8.1. I will quote myself again:
I am not saying that mortality is necessarily easy to accept for all people, but mortality is much harder to accept when we are presented shaky promises of eternal life either in the sky or in some fantastic unseen dimension. It is perhaps easier if we think of death as merely the changing of our energy into other forms. And it is logical to think so.
Note also: If you are inseparable from the Whole . . . then you might choose to identify with the larger/ultimate ‘self’ rather than with the smaller, temporary system in which your ‘individual’ consciousness resides/consists. Even if somewhat poetic, it is still not illogical to consider yourself to be a manifestation of a self-existent universe encompassing everything possible and imaginable.
But it does seem that most people wish to retain their “finite” perspectives, attempting to prolong and augment them indefinitely.
See also section 1.7. and my response to things which some people consider meaningless.
2.8.2. As with other aspects of life, some people are better at handling reality than others.
2.8.3. Another fairly healthy way of thinking of death is to realize that we face nothing that is not common to all persons of all history. Death is no untrod path. My great grandparents faced it, as did all before them. We will merely follow in their footsteps. Even those ancient Hebrews who did not believe in resurrection would use the metaphor, “He slept with his fathers,” to describe death.
There are also plenty of historical examples of non-Christian individuals who met the transformation of death and the dissolution of ego calmly, peacefully, or heroically.
2.8.4. * The ancient Epicureans had some very healthy things to say about death, too.
“Death is nothing to us.” No worries.
We are not afraid of our previous non-existence before we were born, and we should, therefore, have no fear of returning to that state in which we existed before birth.
Although the process of dying may hurt as long as one is alive, death itself cannot be painful, because the sensing apparatus necessary to register pain will be dissolved. Do what you can to ease the process while living, and there is nothing to fear in “death itself.”
Everyone who really enjoys a good, peaceful, dream-less sleep could just as well look forward to the serenity of death with no qualms whatsoever, viewing it as comparable to beautiful sleep.
For an introduction to Epicurean thought on death, a nice starting point is the Roman poet Lucretius’ work, On the Nature of Things (Latin, De Rerum Natura), book 3, especially 3.830-1094.
2.9. Christian Death of the Ego:
One thing that I have often thought interesting is that probably every Christian I know is quite egoistic, psychologically hung up on ensuring their imagined eternal survival, and it seems to me that usually they think this includes their mind, will, and emotions.
I find this ironic, since one could readily make the argument that Christianity calls for the death of the ego and the survival not of the individual mind at all, but only of the spiritual part of a person or of whatever has been conformed to the nature of God/Christ. Consider the following excerpts:
Matthew 16:24-25 - "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it."
John 3:30 - "He must increase, but I must decrease."
John 12:24-25 - "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abides alone: but if it dies, it brings forth much fruit. He that loves his life shall lose it; and he that hates his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal."
Romans 8:29 – “For those whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son.”
2 Corinthians 4:16 - "For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day."
Galatians 2:20 - "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ lives in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."
Galatians 5:24 - "And they who are Christ's have crucified the flesh . . . "
Philippians 3:8 - "Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,"
Colossians 2:13 - "And you, being dead in your sins and the un-circumcision of your flesh, he has enlivened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;"
Colossians 2:11 - "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:"
Colossians 2:20 - "Wherefore if you be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, . . . "
2 Timothy 2:11 - "It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him:"
One could make the argument that only Christ/God lives forever in Christianity. In a way, Christians do not really get eternal life. They must die to self. They must lose their ego. They must become something different – Christ. They must “be conformed to the image of his Son.” Again, the Galatians quote could be taken pretty seriously, "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ lives in me.” In this verse, it is Christ that lives, not Paul. Nothing that is not conformed to the image of Christ survives death.
Some interpreters distinguish between “soul” (Greek, psyche) – which they consider mortal, consisting of the mind, will, and emotions – and “spirit” (Greek, pneuma), which they consider immortal. They may cite Hebrews 4:12 among other verses. (A quick Google search turned up this link, for example - http://www.greatbiblestudy.com/soul_spirit.php ). This may well be the atypical view for average Christians, who often do not delve into doctrines and frequently enough are hardly even familiar with the Bible itself.
The Bible, however, is a collection of many books written by many people, and it is open to many possible interpretations. Someone may cite the related passage of Romans 6:1-12 and suggest that Christians do not completely die to their ego, but only to “sinful” parts of it. Any Christian desperate for his/her ego to live forever could probably find a way to justify it.
Anyway, the Christians I know are not really dead to their ego, not even to the “sinful” or petty parts, and they are certainly not “conformed to the image of Christ” in any sense but perhaps a poetic sense, allowed a liberal and symbolic interpretation. I spent 23 years as a very devout Christian living among other Christians and visiting many churches and conferences across the country, but never once did I meet anyone who I can honestly say came anywhere close to being “conformed to the image of Christ.”
In many, perhaps most, cases, Christians (except for the liberal ones) seem to me worse off and more egoistic than plenty of non-Christians, thinking life would be completely meaningless if their specific personal ego were unable to live eternally.
I do recognize, however, that in plenty of communities in the U.S., and for plenty of people, Christianity, as seen through local churches and people, has been the only philosophy even attempting to offer them meaning or help them with problems. Of course such people, especially if not well-read, could think that their life would be meaningless without Christianity and the survival of their personal ego.
Another irony is that this same concept, interpreted liberally and symbolically, poetically if you will, could be applied to all people, all things, regardless of religion. We all “die in the flesh” constantly, but live ever in the eternal “spirit” (which is ‘wind/breath,’ and is realistic only as a symbol of the substance(s)/ ‘energy’ of the universe). Any human who “wakes up” from the “sleep” of “selfish” living (“death” metaphorically) and realizes that he/she is not really separate from “the All” (or “God,” if you prefer) but is one with the interconnected web of Life, and who learns then to see through greater eyes, from larger perspectives, can be said to “die to self” (the small self, the “flesh”) and be “reborn” into an “eternal” life (the life of the whole, the All). I think it is noteworthy that some early Christians interpreted the resurrection of the Christ as a ‘spiritual,’ rather than physical, phenomenon, possibly even emphasizing a symbolic rather than grossly simplistic, “literal” interpretation. It is too bad that the cruder view won out, as one might have expected from people influenced by a form of Judaism which had evolved to adopt the concept of a physical/bodily resurrection in “the last days.”
The “soft” interpretation of “death to self/ego” can simply refer to the experiences of all people (including atheists, philosophers, and people of various traditions) who realize that there is far more to life than living merely to fulfill the desires of their own ego and immediate body. Such people can and do “die to self” in the sense that they now serve greater, “higher” purposes, like seeking the well-being of others (or even the entire community, species, or planet), loving others, devoting their personal resources to education, service, volunteer work, and/or special causes, etc..
2.10. Kurt Vonnegut’s “Tralfamadorian” view of Death:
Vonnegut, Kurt, Jr. wrote an excellent little novel entitled Slaughterhouse-Five (1969). In it, the main character is kidnapped by aliens who have an interesting perspective.
Seeing in 4 dimensions:
“He said he had been kidnapped by the Tralfamadorians on the night of his daughter’s wedding [1967]. He hadn’t been missed, he said, b/c the Tralfamadorians had taken him through a time warp. ... The creatures were friendly, and they could see in four dimensions. They pitied Earthlings for being able to see only three. ...
“The most important thing I learned on Tralfamadore was that when a person dies, he only appears to die. He is still very much alive in the past, so it is very silly for people to cry at his funeral. All moments, past, present, and future, always have existed, always will exist. The Tralfamadorians can look at all the different moments, just the way we can look at a stretch of the Rocky Mountains, for instance. They can see how permanent all the moments are, and they can look at any moment that interests them. It is just an illusion we have here on Earth that one moment follows another one, like beads on a string, and that once a moment is gone it is gone forever.
When a Tralfamadorian sees a corpse, all he thinks is that the dead person is in bad condition in that particular moment, but that the same person is just fine in plenty of other moments. Now, when I myself hear that somebody is dead, I simply shrug and say what the Tralfamadorians say about dead people, which is ‘So it goes.’”
(Vonnegut pp.26-27)
There are many other priceless quotes and sentiments in the book, but this one passage will suffice to explain this view.
I use fiction here to make this point because I think it is a fun and interesting idea. More than that, I think it is profound and beautiful.
2.11. Rather than say more, I will stop here and simply answer/address questions/comments.