Recently I published an article in Scientific American Mind entitled "Never Say Die: Why We Can't Imagine Death." The article summarises a body of research -- both my own and the findings of other researchers --that has led me as a psychological scientist to believe that the afterlife is a bizarre illusion promulgated by the human mind. My central argument, which I've also articulated in more formal scientific outlets, is that whenever we begin to conceptualise the afterlife, or to imagine what it will be ‘like' to be dead, our only cognitive recourse is to project ourselves into the impossible simulation of a conscious person looking around and taking stock of our ‘afterlife' surroundings. But in order to take stock of where and what you are after you've died, you'd rather need a working, functional brain. This is why I say in the article that you'll never know that you've died; at the very least a cerebral cortex is required to harbour propositional knowledge, including the knowledge that by all appearances you've kicked the bucket. Even using such terms as the nothing-‘ness' of death betrays the illusion that death is a ‘state' of unending blackness.
The article has generated a lot of good, heated discussion, both on the Scientific American website and elsewhere. I'm very happy that it has people talking openly and personally about the subject of death and the afterlife. But I must say, some of the comments are very, very odd. A little hostile too. People can be so touchy about their souls. In an earlier post I mentioned that I was a shoulder-shrugging atheist, which means I'm not easily riled up over the question of whether God, souls, and the afterlife are truly real. I assume they're not, because this is the hallmark of parsimonious science. But quite honestly I don't care. I find it much more interesting, and more in keeping with my training, to examine the nature of the psychological processes that allow us to think about questions like God and souls in the first place.
The problem is that many people can't get past the primary syllogism contained in the article. The mind is what the brain does, the brain stops working at death, therefore the feeling that the mind survives death is a psychological illusion. It really is that simple.
I've rounded up some of my favourite negative responses to the article, or at least the most entertaining ones, along with a few quick replies. Typos are intact (in fact what's perhaps even more disconcerting to me than the fact most people are so averse to logic is the sobering realisation that their grammar is so poor.) Since my blog is here at PT rather than over at Scientific American, it's just easier this way.
Enjoy.
**********************************************
"in an 11 dimensional universe, its foolish and egotistical to think that life and conciousness only occur in 3."
****I've absolutely no idea what this means. Do you? I do talk a lot, though I don't see what that has to do with anything. But I think the above comment comes across as effective to detractors because it puts me in my place.
"There's a fallacy at the basis of this argument: you are correlating the existence of a mind with the existence of a brain. Where's your evidence that there's a causal relationship between the two?"
****It's called cognitive neuroscience.
"Mr. Bering, the point of your article is that we can't imagine death because we haven't experienced it? You are one smart scholar."
****Thank you (takes bow).
"Since we haven't a clue what consciousness is, all articles like this one, that profess implicitly to know something that can only be determined if we do know what consciousness is are mental masturbation."
*****You say that like it's a bad thing. But anyway the hard problem of consciousness (qualia are generated from physical matter and so on) is mostly a question of *how* not whether subjective states are produced by the brain. I'm not sure it's such a hard problem anyway. Philosophers enjoy their mysteries.
"If you'd simply take the time to research, there are literally thousands of excellent, substantial examples of "dead" people who have identified themselves through more than name and have spoken very clearly and candidly to someone who is still physically present in this world."
****Strangely enough I couldn't find any such articles in the peer-reviewed scientific journals I frequent.
"You want to know what its like to be dead? Think of what it was like before you were born and there you go. Nothingness forever."
*****This theme came up quite frequently in the comments section -- that the afterlife is ‘like' the state prior to conception. But of course it's the same cognitive hurdle at heart. One of my doctoral students, Natalie Emmons, is ankle-deep in data collection on this very topic, studying how children and adults intuitively reason about their own minds before birth.
"Seriously. If the second law states that energy is neither created nor destroyed, what does that say about your "soul"? If brain activity is an electrical impulse flowing across a synapse, what happens to that energy when you die?"
****The same thing that happens to the energy you burn when you're doing cardios, but I don't think there's a heaven for metabolised fat. By the way, Einstein is often misquoted as endorsing belief in an afterlife, when in fact he thought the idea that personal consciousness survives death preposterous.
"My theory is that our minds are energy and that since energy is never created nor destroyed, our personalities existed before birth into the present form and continue to exist after the death of this form. Perhaps young children are more in touch with this 'memory' than adults are. Perhaps that is why it is so difficult to imagine not existing even after death. There is a part of our personality that knows that we have always been and will always be."
****See how frequently this ‘energy' construct crops up in discussions of the afterlife? I find that interesting.
"Those steeped in science have to realize there are things that just can't be explained away. All explanations of what happens after we die, whether it be organized religion or this articles of this type, are simply means of dealing with the insecurity of not knowing."
****In other words, ‘we can never know so don't bother asking.' This is the sort of anti-reductionist, anti-intellectual nonsense that has psychological science so far behind in understanding supernatural beliefs.
"When you really take the time and do specialized research in what happens when you physically die (not bone headed dogmatic science) to say we don't survive becomes a ludicrous ill informed statement. I 'stumbledupon' this article and realize it is for a closed mind science types so I knew after the heading the outcome. If you believe you die and that's it end of you forever then no one can change your mind except yourself. The author is a believer and will always be in this life...."
****Oh, I don't know. I might change my mind at the very last minute. But don't judge me on the basis of my deathbed conversion. I probably won't be very lucid then.
"While this article has merit, it only looks at the physical aspect of a human being. Are we not spiritual beings as well, with a soul?"
****No. But I've nothing against you thinking that we are.
"The mind is what the brain does." This is demonstrably false. There are multiple documented cases of patients with extreme hydrocephalus that has destroyed 90%+ of the brain still having normal intelligence. This fact alone demonstrates that mind is not tied to brain."
****This is an empirical question. We can remove your brain bit by bit, and see whether you have any intelligence left once it's all gone.
