Reincarnation and its Critics, Part 4: No scientific verifiable mechanisms or empirical evidence

Two Alleged Challenges to the Reincarnation Hypothesis

 

The following blog post is someone's* summary of the research into reincarnation, which on the whole seems fair and balanced. There are two alleged challenges to the reincarnation hypothesis in there that I'd like to address. These challenges are not confined to this specific writer as I occasionally see them expressed elsewhere too. Regarding the first challenge, the author says:

One
of the most significant challenges for the theory of reincarnation is
the lack of any scientifically verifiable mechanism by which it could
occur.

I do not consider this a challenge, least of all a significant one. We simply need to bear in mind that there
is also no scientifically verifiable mechanism by which even our present bodies come to
be associated with consciousness. Indeed, this is why the issue of how consciousness relates to one's body has
been labelled the hard problem (also see this Guardian article). If we have no idea how our everyday embodied consciousness is related to our present bodies, indeed that no such scientific theory even seems possible, then a fortiori we could scarcely be expected to conjure up a mechanism for how reincarnation occurs.

 

Immediately after mentioning the first challenge the author presents a second challenge. He (or she, or it) says:

Moreover,
there is no empirical evidence that consciousness or the soul could
survive physical death, as required by the theory of reincarnation.

Obviously, there is a great
deal of evidence. There are near-death experiences and the
closely related phenomenon deathbed visions and other peculiar
occurrences near death. There are past life memories, crisis apparitions, mediumship and other more indirect evidence. Of course, how persuasive we should consider each strand
of evidence is up for debate. One might indeed argue that none of this evidence is
particularly compelling (and there certainly are weaknesses, although I
regard all the evidence as a collective whole to be very compelling).
Nevertheless, evidence it is.

But I’m guessing that by empirical evidence the author and skeptics mean scientific evidence.
More specifically that we have never been able to detect consciousness when it isn't in a body
(i.e. we have never detected disembodied consciousness). That is, leaving aside apparitions, no
one ever
sees disembodied consciousness nor indeed have our scientific
instruments
ever detected any disembodied consciousness. I think the argument would
then be that this strongly suggests that disembodied consciousness does
not exist.

There's an immediate problem here that occurs to me. If our scientific instruments could detect disembodied consciousness, then by definition,
consciousness would then be material or physical or at least have
material aspects. However, this is not something that sophisticated
believers in an afterlife would subscribe to. Consciousness, or the
self, cannot be seen, touched or detected in any manner even when embodied. Indeed, this is why it is concluded by many that it is immaterial. And
if we cannot see or detect consciousness associated with bodies, why on
earth would we have any expectation that we will be able to observe disembodied consciousness?

 

But what if Reductive Materialism is correct?

 

Typically, when I give such arguments as I have above, people will claim there is a scientifically verifiable mechanism by which bodies come to be associated with consciousness and that we can in fact detect embodied consciousness. This will be the case should consciousness quite literally be what the brain does. Or, alternatively, if consciousness doesn't really exist, and it is merely an illusion created by our brains. In other words, if some variety of reductive materialism is correct.

However, assuming some variety of reductive materialism is a clear case of question-begging since those who believe in reincarnation will reject this position on the mind-body problem; or at least they will if they have in mind some type of self or soul that reincarnates. What the skeptic needs to do, therefore, is to advance arguments for reductive materialism.  However, it seems to me that this is an insurmountable challenge. 

Other posts in this Reincarnation series:

Reincarnation and its Critics, Part 1: The Increasing Population

Reincarnation and its Critics, Part 2: Reincarnation isn't Falsifiable

Reincarnation and its Critics, Part 3: Patterns in Reincarnation Cases are determined by Culture

*I say someone, but the article seems very ChatGPT..ish to me. It's reproducing the standard arguments for and objections to reincarnation, but it all seems rather derived and soulless. It is balanced but boring, and nothing novel in the text. Exactly like ChatGPT's responses to me.  

Glen Borchardt, author of "The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein".

A certain Glenn Borchardt -- author of The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein and other books -- said to me:

"your statement that "science does not depend on our metaphysical presuppositions" is false. For instance, folks cannot be scientists unless they assume "there are causes for all effects." That is a metaphysical presupposition because it goes "beyond physics." We will never be able to completely prove that assumption, but without it, we could not do science."

We have to have the working supposition that the world exhibits regularities, if that is "metaphysical". Physical causation seems to me to be what we project onto reality in order to try and make sense of it. Whether or not it exists is an interesting question, but it's not needed for science. How could it be? We observe reality, note the regularities it exhibits, then apply mathematical formulas to describe such change in the world. Regardless of whether there is such a thing as gravitational force, it remains the case that objects fall and we can mathematically describe and predict a falling object's motion. This is not to deny that both the concepts of forces, and especially energy, may not be useful

Berkeley's metaphysic doesn't require physical causation, he thought only mental causation exists and I think he might well be right. That won't impress Glenn Borchard though since he thinks immaterialism is absurd. But I don't care what he feels, I care about the truth.

A chat with ChatGPT about the possibility of an Afterlife

There's a new AI chatbot called ChatGPT that seems to be vastly superior in its responses to any other chatbot I have attempted to converse with. The following is my
2nd ever conversation with ChatGPT. I will make some comments at the end. I will add a little formatting to make it more clear. I have also slightly edited one sentence of mine to aid clarity.

Ian
How likely do you think it is that there is an afterlife?

ChatGPT
As
a machine learning model, I don't have personal beliefs or opinions.
The concept of an afterlife is a matter of faith and not something that
can be proven or disproven by scientific means. Different people have
different beliefs and opinions on the subject.

Ian
What reasons can be given both for and against an afterlife?

ChatGPT
There are several arguments that can be made for and against the existence of an afterlife.

Arguments
for the existence of an afterlife often include religious or spiritual
beliefs, near-death experiences, and the concept of consciousness being
separate from the physical body. Some people believe that the soul or
spirit continues to exist after death, and that there is a realm or
plane of existence where the soul goes.

Arguments
against the existence of an afterlife include scientific evidence that
the brain and consciousness are closely tied to physical processes, and
the lack of concrete evidence for an afterlife. Some people argue that
death is simply the end of consciousness and that there is no afterlife.
Others suggest that the idea of an afterlife is simply a human
construct, created to help people cope with the fear of death.

Ultimately,
whether or not an afterlife exists is a matter of personal belief and
faith, and there is no scientific proof one way or the other.

Ian
How do such brain/consciousness correlations provide evidence that there is no afterlife?

ChatGPT
The
correlation between brain activity and consciousness suggests that
consciousness is a product of the physical brain and its functioning.
This is the basis of the argument that consciousness is not separate
from the physical body and that there is no soul or spirit that can
continue to exist after death.

Research
in neuroscience has shown that specific areas of the brain are
associated with different cognitive functions, such as memory, emotion,
and perception. Damage to these areas can lead to corresponding deficits
in cognitive function. This correlation between brain activity and
cognitive function is seen as evidence that the brain is the source of
consciousness.

Additionally,
the study of near-death experiences, which are often cited as evidence
for the existence of an afterlife, have been explained by medical and
neuroscientific explanations, such as the release of certain chemicals
in the brain during life-threatening events, or the effects of oxygen
deprivation on the brain.

It's
important to note that this is an ongoing discussion and many
neuroscientists and philosophers are still researching on the
relationship between brain, consciousness and the afterlife. There is no
certain conclusion yet, and it is still a matter of debate.

Ian
How
do correlations between brain activity and consciousness suggest that
consciousness is a product of the physical brain and its functioning?
Why do these correlations suggest a causal link from brains to
consciousness? Why is it not equally (if not more) possible that brains
merely affect consciousness rather than producing it?

Incidentally,
near-death experiences have not been explained. For one thing, such
"explanations" assume upfront that the brain produces consciousness and
that this hypothesis is wholly unproblematic. This is in spite of the
"hard problem" of consciousness. For another thing, such explanations
are purely speculative. And for yet a third thing, they do not explain
anything like the full range of phenomena and feelings associated with
near-death experiences, least of all the other anomalous phenomena that
people experience close to death.

ChatGPT

The
correlation between brain activity and consciousness is seen as
evidence for a causal link from the brain to consciousness, because when
specific areas of the brain are damaged, there are corresponding
deficits in cognitive function. This suggests that the brain is the
source of consciousness, rather than the brain simply affecting
consciousness.

It's
important to note that this is an ongoing discussion in the field of
philosophy of mind and neuroscience, and there is no consensus on the
relationship between brain and consciousness. Some theories propose that
consciousness is a product of the brain's information processing and
that the brain creates a sort of "virtual reality" that we experience as
consciousness. Other theories propose that consciousness is a
fundamental aspect of the universe, and that the brain is a sort of
filter or receiver of consciousness.

Regarding
near-death experiences, it's true that these experiences have not been
fully explained by neuroscience and that there is ongoing research on
the topic. The explanations that have been proposed are based on current
understanding of brain function and are not meant to be definitive.
It's also true that there are many aspects of near-death experiences
that are yet to be understood and that some people experience anomalous
phenomena. It is also important to note that many of the proposed
explanations for near-death experiences are based on the assumption that
consciousness is produced by the brain, and this is a subject of
ongoing debate.

It's
important to note that these are complex issues and there is ongoing
research and debate in the field of neuroscience, philosophy, and
consciousness studies. There is no definite answer yet and different
people have different perspectives on this subject.

Ian
Is it the case that whenever X affects Y that this suggests that X creates Y rather than X merely affecting Y?

Near-death
experiences don't have any explanation at all. Indeed, there is no
explanation for any consciousness at all. And if any such alleged
explanations of near-death experiences assume upfront that brains create
consciousness, then this is a form of question-begging.

[a long pause before it responds!]

ChatGPT
No,
it is not the case that whenever X affects Y, this suggests that X
creates Y rather than X merely affecting Y. The relationship between
cause and effect is complex and can be difficult to determine. It is
possible for X to affect Y without X being the direct cause of Y, or for
there to be multiple causes for a single effect.

You
are correct that there is currently no widely accepted explanation for
the phenomenon of consciousness and the relationship between brain
activity and consciousness is still a subject of ongoing research and
debate. Theories such as the idea that the brain creates a "virtual
reality" that we experience as consciousness or the idea that
consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe are still being
explored. It's also correct that some proposed explanations for
near-death experiences assume that consciousness is produced by the
brain, which is a subject of ongoing debate and discussion, and this
assumption can be seen as a form of question-begging.

Ian
So
is it possible that the mind-brain correlations can be explained by the
brain merely affecting the mind or consciousness rather than creating
it?

ChatGPT
It
is possible that the correlations between brain activity and
consciousness can be explained by the brain merely affecting the mind or
consciousness, rather than creating it. This is one of the perspectives
that is being considered within the field of philosophy of mind and
neuroscience.

One
theory, called "panpsychism", postulates that consciousness is a
fundamental aspect of the universe, and that the brain is a sort of
filter or receiver of consciousness. In this perspective, the brain
would not create consciousness, but rather modulate it.

Another
perspective is that consciousness is an emergent property of complex
systems, like the brain. In this view, the brain doesn't create
consciousness but it allows for it to emerge from the interactions
between its neural networks.

It's
also important to note that even if it is determined that the brain
does not create consciousness, it would still play a crucial role in
shaping and modulating it, and that the correlations between brain
activity and consciousness would still be an important area of study in
order to understand this relationship.

In
any case, it's important to keep in mind that the relationship between
brain and consciousness is an ongoing discussion and there is no
definite answer yet.

Ian
Is
it more likely that the mind-brain correlations are explained by the
brain creating consciousness rather than the brain merely changing,
modulating, and attenuating consciousness? If so, then why?

ChatGPT
The
question of whether the mind-brain correlations are explained by the
brain creating consciousness, rather than the brain merely changing,
modulating, and attenuating consciousness, is a matter of ongoing debate
and research in the field of philosophy of mind and neuroscience.

Some
scientists and philosophers argue that the correlation between brain
activity and cognitive function, as well as the effects of brain damage
on cognitive function, suggest that the brain is the source of
consciousness. They argue that the brain's information processing
creates a sort of "virtual reality" that we experience as consciousness.

Others
argue that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe, and
that the brain is a sort of filter or receiver of consciousness, or that
consciousness is an emergent property of complex systems, like the
brain. In these perspectives, the brain does not create consciousness,
but modulates it, or allows for it to emerge from the interactions
between its neural networks.

It's
important to note that there is no consensus on the relationship
between brain and consciousness and different people have different
perspectives on this subject. Some researchers and philosophers argue
that the weight of evidence supports one view over the other, but
ultimately, the question of whether the brain creates consciousness or
modulates it remains an open question in the field.

Ian
What
are these arguments that scientists and philosophers make which they regard as suggesting that the correlations between brain activity and cognitive
function and the effects of brain damage on cognitive function, are
best explained by supposing brains create consciousness?

ChatGPT
Scientists
and philosophers who argue that the correlations between brain activity
and cognitive function, as well as the effects of brain damage on
cognitive function, suggest that the brain is the source of
consciousness, typically cite several pieces of evidence in support of
their position. Some of these arguments include:

1. Neural
   Correlates of Consciousness: The discovery of specific areas of the
   brain that are associated with different cognitive functions, such
   as memory, emotion, and perception, and the fact that damage to
   these areas can lead to corresponding deficits in cognitive
   function, is seen as evidence that the brain is the source of
   consciousness.

2. Near-death
   experiences: Some researchers point out that near-death experiences can
   be explained by medical and neuroscientific explanations, such as
   the release of certain chemicals in the brain during
   life-threatening events, or the effects of oxygen deprivation on
   the brain.

3. Brain
   plasticity: The brain's ability to adapt and change in response to
   different experiences is seen as evidence that consciousness arises
   from the brain's information processing.

4. Evolutionary
   explanations: Some researchers argue that consciousness is an
   adaptation that evolved to help organisms navigate and survive in
   their environment, and that the brain is the organ that enables
   this adaptation.

5. Artificial
   Intelligence and brain simulation: As technology advances and we are
   able to create more sophisticated artificial intelligence and brain
   simulations, the idea that consciousness could be artificially
   created or replicated is gaining ground.

It's
important to note that these are ongoing debates and different
scientists and philosophers have different perspectives on the
relationship between brain and consciousness. Some may find these
arguments more convincing than others, but ultimately, the question of
whether the brain creates consciousness or modulates it remains an open
question in the field.

Ian
Let's take these highlighted reasons one by one.

1. Neural Correlates of Consciousness: As
   I have already suggested, this is not a reason unless they explain why
   these correlations are best explained by brains creating consciousness
   rather than the brain merely changing, modulating, and attenuating
   consciousness.
   

2. Near-death experiences: You're repeating
   yourself (as well as with 1). I refer you to my previous response on
   near-death experiences. Also, even if no-one ever had a near-death
   experiences, this wouldn't entail the brain creates consciousness.
   

3. Brain plasticity: If
   the brain merely changes, modulates, and attenuates consciousness --
   and it will presumably have this function in order to allow us to
   interface with this physical world -- then it is entirely unclear how
   such plasticity favours the hypothesis that brains create consciousness
   as opposed to the alternative.
   

4. Evolutionary explanations: This
   assumes that consciousness has causal powers over and above what the
   neural correlates of consciousness are doing. But mainstream academic
   opinion is overwhelmingly of the conviction that the physical world is
   closed. In fact, what these researchers are doing is assuming
   materialism UPFRONT, which is, of course, transparent question-begging.
   In other words, this cannot be an argument for the thesis that brains
   create consciousness as opposed to merely changing, modulating, and
   attenuating consciousness.

5. Artificial Intelligence and brain simulation: Computers merely follow instructions. Why would this connote consciousness?

OK,
at this point it is clear that I'm not going to get an answer to why it
is deemed more likely that brains create consciousness rather than
merely changing, modulating, and attenuating it. So thanks for the
conversation and goodbye.

ChatGPT
I
apologize if my previous response was not clear enough. You are correct
that the arguments I provided do not necessarily prove that the brain
creates consciousness, rather than modulating it. The relationship
between brain activity and consciousness is a complex and ongoing debate
within the field of philosophy of mind and neuroscience, and there is
no consensus on the subject.

It
is important to note that the arguments I provided are the ones that
some scientists and philosophers use to support their position that the
brain creates consciousness. However, as you have pointed out, there are
alternative explanations and perspectives that are also being
considered.

In
any case, I apologize if I did not provide a satisfactory answer to
your question. My goal is to provide accurate and useful information,
and I understand that this can be a complex and nuanced subject. If you
have any other questions or concerns, please feel free to ask.

My thoughts on the conversation

When asking skeptics why they are so convinced that there is no afterlife, they almost invariably mention the fact that dysfunctional or damaged brains lead to impaired cognitive abilities and/or a change in personality, and hence the unavoidable conclusion is that brains, somehow or other, must give rise to minds or consciousness. Indeed, I have been reading skeptical sources on this subject for decades, and this is virtually the only reason given. 

But, as many of you who have read my other blog posts will be aware, I am not impressed by this argument. As I have pointed out in many places elsewhere, for example in The Mind-Brain Correlations, there is a close correlation between the acuity of our vision and the state of the lenses in the eyeglasses that we wear -- for example, if both the lenses were fogged up, our vision would be very much compromised. Yet, of course, we can all perfectly understand that such correlations do not entail the eyeglasses create our vision, they merely alter it.

(As an aside, I was wondering if I should have introduced this eyeglasses example to ChatGPT, but I suspected that if it has no understanding of anything whatsoever -- and I am personally convinced it doesn't -- then it wouldn't address the relevancy of this point and likely go off on a tangent talking about the opticians and 20:20 vision or whatever! And besides, it ought to be able to understand that x affecting y needn't entail that x produces y without the use of examples.)

Now, of course, skeptics might well claim that the mind-body relationship is utterly unlike that of eyeglasses and vision. But the crucial point here is that the correlations between brain states and mind states are insufficient in and of themselves to establish that brains create minds, or even that this is more likely than brains merely affecting our minds. Arguments need to be advanced in an attempt to show that in this instance, brains creating minds is a more reasonable interpretation of the correlations than the notion of mere alteration. As many of you will know, I come down on the side of alteration, which I won't go into here, but my reasons can be found under Part 5: Dysfunctional brains lead to impaired minds in my review of the soul fallacy.  

 

Unfortunately, despite for many years scouring the Internet and various books, I have never been able to find out why people are so convinced that such brain-mind correlations strongly suggests the former creates the latter*. That is bizarre in itself, but not something I wish to address here. The point here is that this is an absolutely crucial pivotal question. After all, the question of whether there is an afterlife or not is surely of intense interest to the vast majority of us. And this point, that damaged brains result in damaged minds hence there is no afterlife, is constantly wheeled out by skeptics as if it is the very last definitive word on the subject. It is a skeptical prism through which all the purported evidence for an afterlife are viewed. This has the effect of rendering such evidence as near-death experiences as being "extraordinary claims".

So this was why I was very keen to see what ChatGPT had to say on this issue and continually pressed it in the hope of eliciting an actual answer. I hasten to add that I didn't have any expectations that it would advance any such reasons. For where would it get those reasons from?  I have never been able to find any. Of course, if it really is conscious, is sentient, then it is a non-human consciousness, an alien consciousness so to speak, and would be expected to advance its own thoughts on why the mind-brain correlations are best interpreted as the brain creating the mind. But, as I fully expected, it didn't.  It answered like a politician does when asked a question; namely avoided answering it and simply continually repeated the point about the mind being impacted by the brain.

What do I think of ChatGPT?

So what do I think of ChatGPT? I think it is absolutely incredible, extraordinarily impressive. But I do not think it is conscious. I do not think it is doing anything miraculous. If it were providing its own thoughts, it wouldn't parallel the mainstream academic opinion that is already out there. It's
more like a glorified encyclopedia that is trawling the net and other
sources, and regurgitating information out there even though it is often
paraphrasing that information.

Frequently, that regurgitated information is irrelevant. For example, I ask in my penultimate comment what are the scientists and philosophers arguments that they believe demonstrate that the effects of brain damage on cognitive function are best explained by supposing brains create consciousness. In context, I was clearing asking why they considered that the mind- brain correlations are best explained by the brains create consciousness hypothesis rather than the brains merely affecting consciousness hypothesis. But then ChatGPT proceeded to give me a bulleted list of arguments for naturalism that can be easily found on the web and elsewhere, and which do not address my question (I responded anyway, but at that point I gave up on getting an answer).  

 

More generally, there's a lot of extraneous information ChatGPT is providing (and, incidentally, not all of it correct) that is tangential to the question I was asking it.  And a great deal of repetition. If I were conversing with a person, he might say in an exasperated tone, "I've given you my reasons for why we should suppose the brain produces consciousness, why do you keep repeating the question?"  Then I might point out that he's already conceded that the fact that changes in X precipitate changes in Y certain't needn't imply that X creates Y.  And maybe the conversation might develop from that, and even become a meaningful exchange.  But ChatGPT comes across as more resembling an intellectual poseur similar to those endemic on the net, who doesn't really grasp what I'm saying, and simply regurgitates lots of tangential information he's absorbed from other sources so as to give a favourable impression to onlookers. 

Incidentally, I said at the beginning that this was my second conversation with ChatGPT.  For those interested in my first conversation, I put it on my other blog.  

 

 

 

*Of course, I get the feeling. If a beloved relative is suffering from Alzheimer's, then it seems that that person is no longer there, has irrevocably gone, has ceased to exist. But this is a feeling, not an argument. If someone were to wear eyeglasses the entirety of her life, and her vision slowly became poorer and poorer as the lenses became dirtier and dirtier, she might feel that she's slowly becoming blind and nothing can reverse that process. And yet, her vision becomes vastly better on taking the eyeglasses off. And, in fact, with a phenomenon labelled terminal lucidity (sometimes called paradoxical lucidity), which occurs close to death, there is a brief return of mental clarity that might possibly be explained by a soul or self disengaging from one's body and hence no longer having one's consciousness modulated and changed (deleteriously in the case of Alzheimer's) by one's brain.

A conversation with ChatGPT, an AI bot.

I’ve just tried having a conversation with ChatGPT.

Ian
Is it likely that ghosts exist?

ChatGPT
There is currently no scientific evidence to support the existence of ghosts. The idea of ghosts is often explained as a product of superstition, folklore, and religious belief, rather than a physical reality. Some people may claim to have had experiences that they interpret as encounters with ghosts, but these experiences can often be explained by natural causes or psychological factors. In summary, while the idea of ghosts is a popular cultural belief, there is no scientific evidence to support their existence.

Ian
There's currently no scientific evidence to support the existence of consciousness either, would you likewise conclude that no-one is conscious?

Also, the assertion that an experience of what one takes to be a ghost can be explained "by natural causes or psychological factors" is a blanket statement that might be applicable to many such alleged encounters, but scarcely all.

ChatGPT
You are correct that consciousness is a complex and not fully understood phenomenon, and there is ongoing debate in the scientific community about its nature and underlying mechanisms. However, there is a wealth of evidence from neuroscience, psychology, and philosophy that suggests consciousness exists and plays a vital role in our experience of the world.

Regarding ghosts, while some alleged encounters with ghosts might be explainable by natural causes or psychological factors, that doesn't mean that all such encounters can be explained in this way. However, it is important to note that the absence of scientific evidence for ghosts does not necessarily mean they do not exist, but it does make it less likely. The burden of proof is on those who claim that ghosts do exist to provide evidence for their existence.

In summary, consciousness is a complex and not fully understood phenomenon, but there is a lot of evidence to support its existence. In contrast, there is currently no scientific evidence to support the existence of ghosts, but it does not mean they do not exist.

Ian
Regarding the first paragraph. Firstly, it's not the fact that consciousness is not fully understood, rather it is wholly left out in a scientific description of the world. You are merely repeating what skeptics assert.

Secondly, academic opinion almost universally holds that the physical world is closed. That is to say, that all change in the world is caused by prior physical events. This then means that consciousness has no causal role. Hence, contrary to what you assert, unless you're a materialist of some type there is and can be no evidence for consciousness. You are a materialist? Well, first of all, I would deny that materialism, or at least reductive materialism, is intelligible -- it is simply incompatible with the existence of consciousness. But let's leave that aside. Even if we do assume materialism, clearly this would be question-begging against the existence of ghosts since a believer in ghosts would hardly likely to be a materialist. Moreover, you claim that the reason ghosts are unlikely is due to the lack of scientific evidence, NOT because materialism is correct.

Regarding the second paragraph. You can only have scientific evidence for that which is quantifiable, or that which is measurable. If something is non-physical and hence has no causal impact on the physical world, then there will be no effects that can be measured. Given this, it cannot be the case that the lack of such evidence makes it less likely. One might likewise argue that the failure of metal detectors to detect plastic makes the existence of plastic less likely. But, of course, that simply does not follow.

And stating the burden of proof is on the believer of ghosts needs to be argued for. Why should the default assumption be that there are no ghosts when people throughout history and across all cultures have reported experiences of seeing ghosts?

ChatGPT
You are correct that the nature and existence of consciousness is still a topic of ongoing debate and research in the scientific community, and that different perspectives and theories exist. Materialism, which is the belief that everything in the universe can be explained by physical processes and properties, is one such perspective, but there are also other theories that propose different explanations for consciousness.

Regarding the existence of ghosts, you are also correct that the lack of scientific evidence does not necessarily mean that ghosts do not exist. The idea of ghosts is often explained as a product of superstition, folklore, and religious belief, rather than a physical reality. However, it's also important to note that ghosts and other supernatural entities are not considered to be part of the natural world and therefore, their existence cannot be proven or disproven through scientific means.

Regarding the burden of proof, it's a principle in logic and science that the burden of proof falls on the person making a claim, rather than those who reject the claim. This principle is based on the idea that it's more reasonable to assume that a claim is false until evidence is provided to support it. Given that the existence of ghosts is a claim about something that does not fit into our current understanding of the natural world, it is reasonable to require evidence in order to accept the claim as true.

In summary, The nature and existence of consciousness is still a topic of ongoing debate and research in the scientific community, and that different perspectives and theories exist. The idea of ghosts is often explained as a product of superstition, folklore, and religious belief, rather than a physical reality, and the burden of proof falls on the person making a claim of their existence.

Ian
Most of this is simply repeating what you have already said. And I know why. You are simply copying and pasting what skeptics say on the net and elsewhere. But they never have responses to my counter-arguments, hence you have nothing to draw on in response, so you simply repeat yourself.

But I'll just address this burden of proof issue. Whoever said that "the burden of proof falls on the person making a claim, rather than those who reject the claim", is incorrect. In our observations of the world we note that the Universe appears to be described by physical laws. It seems that these laws have universal applicability -- that is the very same laws apply throughout the Universe. Hence, we know what entities to expect and what not to expect -- thus our expectation is that stars will have planets orbiting them, and not flying teapots. In short, if someone asserts that x exists, but x would be unexpected given our understanding of physical laws, then the burden of proof ought to be on the one making the assertion. Note, though, that strictly speaking there is no distinction between positive and negative assertions. Hence, we surmise there are galaxies beyond the cosmic horizon even though in principle we can never detect them. So, contrary to what people maintain, the burden of proof is not on the one asserting something exists, but rather it's on the one asserting something exists which we would not expect given our understanding of physical laws. However, clearly this only applies to PHYSICAL existents. That is, it only applies to objects and processes that have a material existence and for which the laws of nature describe.

Also, I should point out that I have not claimed that ghosts exist, even though I don't think there is any good reason to doubt their existence. You have not provided any such reasons but are simply regurgitating the standard skeptic spiel and not addressing my counter-arguments.

I do not think there is any further purpose to this conversation. Thanks for the chat.

ChatGPT
You are correct that the burden of proof principle is a matter of ongoing debate and different perspectives exist. In the context of scientific inquiry, the principle that the burden of proof falls on the person making a claim is based on the idea that it's more reasonable to assume that a claim is false until evidence is provided to support it.

Regarding the existence of ghosts, it is important to note that ghosts and other supernatural entities are not considered to be part of the natural world and therefore, their existence cannot be proven or disproven through scientific means. I apologize if it seemed that I was only repeating the standard skeptical viewpoint, but my goal is to provide a balanced and neutral perspective.

I understand that you have not claimed that ghosts exist, but rather you have argued that it is likely that ghosts exist, and that there is no good reason to doubt their existence. However, as I stated earlier, the lack of scientific evidence does not necessarily mean that ghosts do not exist, but it does make it less likely.

I apologize if my previous responses did not address your counter-arguments fully. My apologies if it seemed that I was simply repeating what skeptics say, as a language model, my goal is to provide an objective and neutral perspective on any given topic.

Thank you for the stimulating conversation and I apologize if it seemed unproductive.

Often it's extremely hard to decide what is the rational thing to believe.

It's extraordinarily difficult for most of us to decide what the truth is on many contentious issues. Will we witness catastrophic climate change in the coming decades? Does psi exist? Is there some type of afterlife? What policies or political system is the most favourable for promoting economic growth, and indeed should such growth necessarily be our aim? Will consuming 5 to 10 portions a day of fruit and vegetables (provided not potatoes) promote health and longevity? Does an objective morality exist, or is what we judge as praiseworthy or heinous behaviour simply a reflection of one's culture? Do we have free will?

At the outset, we should recognise in ourselves the prior propensity to favour a particular side on any given issue. Most often this results in us seeking out those sources that back up our beliefs
whilst at the same time we shun those sources that contradict them. That is, we tend to read or listen to people defending what we are predisposed to believe in the first place, and to ignore, or
even adopt a hostile stance, to the arguments advanced by the opposing side.

To counteract this natural propensity, it therefore might seem sensible to simply listen to both sides of an argument, then attempt to make up our own minds. But arguably this is not ideal. For is it sensible to pay equal attention and give equal time to the arguments of a lone maverick compared to the arguments of the many experts who disagree with that maverick? Perhaps instead, the best strategy is to simply trust what experts say on any particular topic?

It might seem especially wise to listen to scientists. They are, after all, supposedly informed by what the science says and might be expected to be objective and impartial. But even when it comes to scientists there are vested interests in asserting a specific view, and vested interests by others in denying that view. There's groupthink, there's the fear of the impact on their careers for those scientists in voicing a contrarian or unfashionable view. There are positions that seem clearly false, but where no-one dares point it out, that is they are afraid to point out that the emperor has no clothes. In short, there are many pressures to conform and simply parrot the mainstream position. However, unfortunately for the mainstream position, many of the alleged discoveries in science cannot be replicated.

And
frequently there are no experts as such. Or at least there are no
people that are especially privileged in having superior knowledge to
the rest of us, even if we are not aware of this. To give one example, the predictions of economists fare little better than flipping a coin.

There is another worry with scientists. The very fact they enjoy a high level of prestige and are respected, means they are listened to and judged by most people to know what they're talking about, even when they pontificate on topics that reside outside their area of expertise. For example, when they derisively dismiss psi, an afterlife, "God", an objective morality, and other contentious issues of a philosophical nature. But, given that most of them have never studied philosophy, or perhaps even given these topics much thought, how seriously ought we take their opinions here?

It's also worth pointing out that there are contentious issues where one personally can be confident in the correctness of a specific stance. This is so despite the fact that the opposing view to one's own might be held with a great deal of conviction and passion. Let's, for example, consider predictions regarding technological progress and, in particular, the so-called technological singularity. There are supposedly informed and respected people that worry that sentient robots will be developed that take over the world and enslave humanity. But, at least to my mind, the very notion of such a technological singularity is preposterous. For a kick-off, it rests on the implicit notion that consciousness or sentience is quite literally merely information processing. This seems to me to be straightforwardly false since information processing simply fails to connote consciousness. Apart from that, we should be very leery of such predictions involving technology since people like Elon Musk and others have vested interests in playing up the rate of technological progress and change. And let's face it, overstating the rate of change in technology is exciting, it's what people like to hear. They don't want to hear someone predicting an unimaginative prosaic future.

We can also be confident of a specific stance if we are informed by having direct
experiences, or experiences reported by those whom we trust. Hence, we
can witness for ourselves the peculiar weather in recent years that
seems to justify our worry about climate change. And many of us have had
direct experience of psi. But on other issues where the answer is not so obvious, how do we decide?

My solution?  First and foremost, think for yourself.  Do your own homework if a topic particularly interests you.  Listen to both sides, but be cynical of people claiming this, that and the other.  Don't be afraid of voicing a minority opinion, or even an opinion that might be uniquely yours.

Our inexplicable existence in a cold dark Universe

What is this world that we inexplicably find ourselves in? Were we placed here by some unknown intelligence for some unfathomable reason? Or is it all just a huge joke, that it's all just meaningless fortuity and happenstance that we find ourselves in existence now and having such thoughts?

If that were not enough, this world, this reality we find ourselves in, is highly strange. Consider our situation. We exist, apparently, on the surface of a small sphere that is suspended in the midst of an effective eternal, cold, dark, nothingness. An effective nothingness, utterly inhospitable and even possibly entirely bereft of any complex life apart from on this one tiny planet. When we gaze up in wonder and forlorn hope seeking to understand why we're here, what it all means, what our role might be, whether there is other life out there, the stars merely gaze back down at us with cold pitiless indifference.

I find our situation to be highly peculiar. Certainly not something I thought about as a child, but the weirdness of our situation has slowly dawned on me the older and older I get. And even at my relatively advanced age, the feeling of weirdness continues to grow.

Perhaps we will eventually find out the answer to such questions in some unknown reality after we die, perhaps we won't. Personally, I feel that we will.

An article on near-death experiences

I read the following skeptical article on NDE's:

The Afterlife Is in Our Heads

These so-called scientific explanations of NDEs assume that it is entirely unproblematic that brains produce consciousness, and given this assumption, they advance speculative hypotheses about how the brain creates such experiences.



Incidentally, I wouldn't claim that NDEs give anything like proof of an afterlife. Clearly, one's mind and implicit expectations very much influences what one actually experiences. But this certainly doesn't mean that one isn't encountering some afterlife realm that one's implicit expectations and beliefs are moulding and shaping. Indeed, this to a certain extent even happens with our everyday embodied vision, as demonstrated by perceptual "illusions".

Just consider that dress.

Just a few comments on various quoted parts:

The idea that near-death experiences, also known as NDEs, offer proof of an afterlife for the soul has been remarkably persistent, despite an accumulation of scientific evidence to the contrary.

 …



NDEs are … explained by physiological processes, [neuroscientists] said, which have been pieced together over the past 50 years.

I’ve never come across any of this evidence. As I said above, at best, they are speculative hypotheses.

[A] wealth of neuroscience research describes how OBE-like experiences—a loss of the sense of self and disturbed body perception or ownership—can be triggered by brain damage, epilepsy, and migraine,7 as well as by stimulation of the part of the brain where the right temporal and parietal lobes meet.

Which, as I have continually explained on countless occasions e.g here, has no implications either way, since this would be precisely what we would expect regardless of whether NDEs are a glimpse of some external reality or not.

The “dissociative anesthetic ketamine can reproduce all aspects of the near-death experience,” Jansen wrote. That includes a sense of ineffability, timelessness, that what is experienced is “real,” that one is actually dead, a perception of separation from the body, vivid hallucination, rapid movement through a tunnel, and emerging “into the light.”

So this assumes that ketamine induced experiences are produced by the brain rather than modifying the brain to allow access to other realities. So this argument only works for those that draw a distinction between the ultimate origin of NDEs on the one hand, and psychedelic experiences on the other.

The article reports Anil Seth as saying:

“If somebody with no brain activity were able to experience something and remember it later, then pretty much everything we know about the brain, about science, about physics is wrong.”

This is just nonsense on stilts. Obviously, since the physical sciences wholly leave out consciousness in their description of reality, then necessarily they can have nothing to say about the abilities of consciousness.