Eric T. Olson is an American philosopher who specializes in metaphysics and philosophy of mind and is most renowned for his research in the field of personal identity. He’s written one of the chapters in The Myth of an Afterlife which can be read here. I’ve read approximately a third of this book so far, but had not as of yet got to this chapter.
Similarly to the other authors of the myth of an afterlife, Eric T. Olson suggests it’s very unlikely that we have a soul which survives the death of our bodies and the reasons he gives parallels very closely the arguments given by these other authors. He says:
“ . . there is wide agreement that, possible or not, it is very unlikely to be the case (that a soul survives). All the evidence supports the opposite conclusion.
For instance, if you could remain conscious despite the total destruction of your body, you could certainly remain conscious after comparatively minor and temporary damage to your brain (van Inwagen,2002, pp. 196-198). We would expect a sharp blow to the head to affect the interaction between you (the soul) and your body, temporarily preventing your body from obeying your will and giving you sensory information, much as damage to a remote-control aircraft might prevent its owner from operating it. You would be unable to move. Everything would go black and silent and numb. The soul itself, though, would be undamaged, and ought to remain fully conscious. You would find yourself effectively disembodied, wondering what had caused the condition and how long it might last. Yet that is not what happens: a sharp blow to the head makes you completely unconscious. General anesthesia does the same thing in a gentler way. But if such a minor alteration to your brain invariably causes unconsciousness, how could you remain conscious when your brain is totally destroyed?
We also know that medium differences in the brain are correlated with dramatic differences in intelligence, alertness, mood, memory, recognitional abilities, sense of humor, and many other mental properties. As far as we know, every mental phenomenon varies according to the state of one’s brain. Though there is much we don’t know about the connections between mental phenomena and the state of the brain, there is little doubt that the connections exist. Facts like these suggest that mental goings-on are physical processes in the brain, not non-physical processes in the soul. There does not appear to be any soul—or if there is, it has nothing to do with our mental life, and its continuation after death is of no more relevance to the afterlife than the continuation of our carbon atoms.
For these and other reasons, the overwhelming majority of philosophers and scientists regard the Platonic model as a lost cause. If this were the only way of escaping the devastation of the grave, we could only hope that the experts are badly mistaken. Naturally we cannot rule this out: theories that were once supported by all known evidence have turned out to be thoroughly wrong, and theories once undermined by all available evidence are occasionally vindicated.
But it is unwise to bet against the settled scientific consensus.
First
things first, and as I have mentioned before, the evidence cited here is indeed
extremely compelling -- at least from a psychological perspective. It feels to me ridiculous to suppose our
consciousness survives wholly intact with the destruction of our body, yet the
brain can affect consciousness so as to seemingly completely extinguish it
under general anaesthesia. But yet I nevertheless
gravitate towards a belief in a “life after death”. Why is this?
Well certainly not because I don’t recognise the compelling nature of
the argument that Eric T. Olson has articulated!
In my view, in order to come to any type of provisional conclusions
regarding what we should believe on any topic, we need to look at the arguments
and evidence on both sides. Thus on the one hand there’s the evidence
that Eric T. Olson cites. On the other
hand, there are reasons which very powerfully suggest that it is very
implausible to suppose brains create consciousness. I explain this in my Science,
the Afterlife, and the Intelligentsia.
To repeat what I said there, it’s not just the case that science cannot at present explain the existence
of consciousness, but rather that science, at least as currently conceived, cannot in principle explain the existence of
consciousness! Brains might cause
consciousness, but if so then this causal relationship is different from any
other causal relationship we see. Moreover,
we have mindless matter interacting with itself which somehow produces not just
conscious experiences, but also what philosophers label as intentionality -- the
power of minds to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties
and states of affairs. Indeed, it seems
to me that the hypothesis that brains create minds is more surprising than if someone, without any knowledge of
television or television sets whatsoever, were to hypothesize that the internal
components of a TV set wholly create
the programmes screened.
Furthermore if brains create consciousness it is difficult to assign a
causal role for consciousness. It seems
to me incoherent to suppose consciousness is wholly causally inefficacious as I
explain in my blog entry can
consciousness be causally inefficacious? Eric T.
Olson takes the option of asserting that “mental goings-on are physical
processes” but physical processes and “mental goings-on” are wholly
characteristically different with nothing in common whatsoever. Hence by
definition they are not one and the same although one of course may cause
or elicit the other.
In addition there is all the evidence, both direct and indirect, which
suggests an afterlife. Such evidence
includes near-death experiences (NDEs) and the closely related phenomenon
deathbed visions, evidence for reincarnation in the form of children’s
recollections of previous lives (although not alleged memories retrieved
through hypnosis which is much poorer quality evidence), apparitions of a
certain type, and mediumship. There is also much indirect evidence which tends
to suggest the continuation of consciousness after death. The most notable
indirect evidence is psi phenomena. It seems to me that the totality of all the
evidence suggests that it exists even if the more remarkable demonstrations of
such phenomena turn out to have involved trickery. Contradicting our current
western understanding of the mind-brain relationship, the existence of such
phenomena suggests there is far more to the mind than is implied by regarding
consciousness as merely being either a function of the brain or a causally
inefficacious by-product of the brain.
And it seems we can render the concept of a soul coherent providing we conceive of a self/soul in a certain way. The fact that mental states are affected by brain states can be squared with such a conception of the self or soul by considering the brain to be a type of "filter" (see my is a "life after death" conceivable?).
Is a "life after death" conceivable?
So why is the concept of a soul a lost cause? We can easily see why one would conclude this
if only the evidence cited by Eric T. Olson is taken into
account. Is this what all the scientists
and philosophers who decisively reject an afterlife are doing? Are they just considering
the evidence against an afterlife and blithely ignoring all the reasons and
evidence which might suggest an afterlife?
In all honesty it seems to me this is precisely what they are doing. I’m approximately one third of the way
through reading the myth of an afterlife, a book consisting of a collection
of chapters written by different authors. With the exception of one of the
authors – Keith Augustine – they have all thus far concentrated on all the various
ways that the brain affects our mentality, albeit in far greater detail than EricT. Olson. No mention whatsoever has been
given by any of the authors of the conceptual difficulties facing any type of
materialism -- difficulties which I regard as decisive (although I stress that just because materialism is wrong,
doesn’t entail there is a “life after death”.
But it does make the prospect vastly more likely). Furthermore, with the exception of Keith Augustine, no mention is given of the evidence suggestive of a “life after
death”.
Now of course someone might point out that it is likely that they’d find the
reasons and evidence for an afterlife completely lacking any merit. Perhaps so, but they need to argue for their conclusions here. If I am to be quite frank I don’t get the
impression that they even aware of
the profound difficulties that face the hypothesis that the brain creates
consciousness.
Or perhaps they consider the evidence that the brain produces
consciousness to be so overwhelming that no other reasons or evidence need be
addressed? But the evidence cited by EricT. Olson doesn’t entail that the
brain produces consciousness. If changes
in X inevitably initiate particular characteristic changes in Y, this does not entail that X produces Y. They might agree with this, but insist that
any change in Y (the self) means that you have not survived. In other words the self, or soul, is held to
have a certain psychological properties. If these change then you have not literally
survived. But I submit this is not the commonsensical notion of the self. If our dispositions, interests, intelligence
and memories constitute the self or
soul (rather than being mere properties, as I hold) then we will not have
survived from our childhood to adulthood either.
But anyway, this is all besides the point because all these points need to be
thrashed out. Ignoring them, as all the
authors of the myth of an afterlife
do (thus far at least), might be profitable in persuading people of the foolishness of an afterlife, but it does
little in terms of trying to establish the truth. If we are serious in trying to establish the
truth or falsity of a hypothesis (whether a scientific hypothesis or not) then all pertinent information, arguments and
evidence need to be considered.
Finally I would take issue with Eric T. Olson’s words in the final paragraph I
quote of him. As
I’ve mentioned before consciousness cannot, even in principle, be scientifically explained -- at least as
science is currently conceived. All we
have are correlations between brain and mental events. Making any causal connections cannot in principle be provided given
that we subscribe to the mechanistic concept of reality. So what’s with his reference to the settled
scientific consensus? Presumably this
refers to scientists’ opinions, but their opinions are pretty much irrelevant
since, first of all, it is not a scientific issue but rather a philosophical one, and secondly, if they only consider the evidence from one perspective and completely ignore
all the evidence and arguments against this position, we cannot have any confidence in their conclusions.
In addition our modern western culture is pretty much unique in
emphatically rejecting an afterlife.
What do the intelligentsia know that the most intelligent people in
other cultures didn’t understand? Are modern scientists more knowledgeable on this specific issue? Certainly there is now a far greater degree
of knowledge of the correlations between brain states and specific
regions of the brain, and mental states. But presumably people have always been
aware that sharp blows to the head can render one unconscious, have always been aware
of deep sleep, have always been aware of the effects of alcohol and other drugs. Why didn’t this evidence convince the greatest minds in the past that
we all cease to exist when we die? My
suspicion is that it is less to do with knowledge of mind/brain correlations, which
has convinced the “experts” (modern day scientists and philosophers) and more
to do with the birth of the mechanistic philosophy and the profound shift in the
way of conceiving reality that this initiated. Once again see my Science,
the Afterlife, and the Intelligentsia.
Eric T. Olson claims modern day scientists and philosophers are experts. Well why doesn’t he, his fellow authors of
the myth of an afterlife, and other prominent figures of the intelligentsia,
provide some arguments and consider the whole matter dispassionately and
justify this label?
