But Nicholas is implying it is not enough. Your glorification of simply existing, and even thriving, is just not enough for most people, in my opinion.
But it should be enough. Just look around and open your eyes and mind. The Grand Canyon isn't enough? A 3,500-year old giant sequoia isn't enough? Bach's Brandenburg Concertos aren't enough? The love of your children and/or dog isn't enough?
Enjoy them while you can. Don't worry about losing them. You can't do anything about that anyway. When you are dead you won't have any sadness or grief about losing them. You won't have any feelings at all.
All the more reason to appreciate life while you're alive instead of seeing life as a "preparation" for something else -- especially when that something else is almost certainly darkness and nothingness.
Such "darkness" would be a persistent state... Who'd be there seeing said darkness? I suggest reading philosopher Tom Clark's essay "Death, Nothingness and Subjectivity".
But wanting, wishing, and hoping do not make it so. I think belief in an afterlife makes it harder for most people to be as happy and productive in this life as they could be.
It is not easy rereading Michael's essay as I lost my 27 year old son on Dec 26.
I will grieve for his presence and his wonderful life for the rest of my life as is right for a sentient being.
I dream of a Heaven for him, but that is my dream as a living being.
As Michael stated, we must grab and cherish the 'here and now', not the lies of organized religion that has only one purpose: profiting by power and wealth over our humanness and our love for our children.
"Imagine where you were before you were born. . . You can no more visualize yourself after you die than you can picture yourself before you were born."
You say this often on your show, so I have to take this opportunity to dispute it: having been in an accident where I lost consciousness, I awoke in the ER with no memories of the previous several hours (prior to the accident). At that time, I had the very visceral realization that if I had died, that that would have been it - just like it was, but with no waking up. Losing that continuity of self was very profound, and I remember what it was like to have . . . not been? for a while. For what it's worth, it lessened my fear of death - the knowledge that I experienced what it was like, and it was okay.
(Of course, I make the assumption that my experience was like death - I obviously did not die, but as I believe that there is no individual continuity after death, I thus equate my experience to it.)
That gives me some comfort. I'm scared of non-existence but im a very young man of 23 and I will have to experience it first before I decide I dont like it. Not that im going to get into any accidents or anything!
Excellent article, Michael. I will make a few comments on quotes.
MS: Imagine where you were before you were born. You can’t because you didn’t exist before you were born.
GW: I disagree. You did exist before you were born. You existed as a human organism from conception to about 24 weeks post conception. And then you existed as a human person from then to birth.
MS: If you are dead you are neither. You can no more visualize yourself after you die than you can picture yourself before you were born.
GW: I can now visualize myself after I have died – slowly disintegrating or cremated, but I could not visualize anything after I have died. I can picture myself before I was born, floating in the womb, but I could not picture myself when I was there.
MS: ...and said copy were uploaded to the cloud and turned on (none of this is even remotely possible),...
GW: I think it is possible and that it will probably be done some day, maybe in a thousand years. But you are correct – it would be a copy of you, not you.
MS: I might also comment briefly on the idea of living “forever” in “eternity.” Most people don’t give this much thought, content with the enchanted notion of continuing on in some state with those we love forever.
GW: I think about it. I would like to go on living indefinitely, if I could opt out at any time. I’d like to be able to choose with whom to interact, not being forced to be with some family members and others.
MS: Forever is a long time to be blissfully bored.
GW: Yes, but in my heaven there would always be new things to learn and new challenges and problems to solve.
MS: Nicholas, I don’t know what will happen to you after you die. No one does. Maybe there is an afterlife, maybe there isn’t.
GW: You make it sound like the odds are even, when they are not. The odds are very much against there being an afterlife, given what we know about the dependency of the mind on the brain. I think you gave the guy too much hope of an afterlife. Belief in an afterlife can be toxic, e.g. 9-11 terrorists.
WLC: There’s no moral accountability. The universe is neither better nor worse for what we do.
GW: I disagree. Our Earth and humankind, both parts of the universe, might be either better or worse for what we do. Look at the case of MLK Jr. Or Einstein.
MS: In this sense, evolution bestowed upon us a moral and purpose-driven life by dint of the laws of nature. We do not need any source higher than that to find meaning or morality.
GW: Yes! Well stated!
MS: In the end, Nicholas, you will never know for certain that there is an afterlife, but you can take some comfort in knowing that no one else knows for sure either.
GW: “Never” is a long time. If he goes into an afterlife, then he will know. Even in this life if science discovers there will be an afterlife, then he will know. “Never” is an error, IMHO.
This is good philosophical consolation, but perhaps Nicholas is looking for more than philosophical consolation. I guess he is looking for confirmation that there's some kind of continuation of existence after death.
As you say, nobody can offer him this confirmation. Like you, "I don’t know what will happen to you after you die. No one does. Maybe there is an afterlife, maybe there isn’t."
What we can do to offer consolation to Nicholas and many, many people like him, is to say that hope in some kind of continuation of existence after death is non inconsistent with what we know about the universe we live in.
As you say in your book, very advanced natural being evolved in the universe would be indistinguishable from God. This means that our own descendants could become God-like and master super-advanced (and unimaginable to us) sci/tech that could enable them to resurrect the dead from the past.
There could also be natural processes that copy and continue to run minds in other substrates after a biological brain ceases to function. The new substrate could be, conceivably, the bare fabric of the quantum vacuum, or (more likely) something even weirder.
Then there is the simulation hypothesis that, as many have noted, is a picture of reality that is compatible with a scientific worldview but totally indistinguishable from religion. A simulation cosmology can accommodate all parts of all religions, first and foremost life after death.
Nicholas, if you are reading this: I can't offer you confirmation, but I can offer you my conviction that this is a consistent worldview. If you want more (and I most certainly want much more), then well, time will tell.
GP: What we can do to offer consolation to Nicholas and many, many people like him, is to say that hope in some kind of continuation of existence after death is non inconsistent with what we know about the universe we live in.
GW: Your claim is false. Continuation of existence, i.e. individual subjective experience, is INCONSISTENT with what we know about the universe we live in. We know the fact of increasing entropy. We know the fact of the dependency of mind on brain. These facts go against your claim.
GP: As you say in your book, very advanced natural being evolved in the universe would be indistinguishable from God.
GW: The former is natural, but the latter is supernatural. I think there could be tests to distinguish the difference. For example, which of the two is subject to entropy?
GP: The new substrate could be, conceivably, the bare fabric of the quantum vacuum, or (more likely) something even weirder.
GW: I disagree. The substrate would have to be organized or structured in some way, just like the brain is, not like the fabric of the quantum vacuum, as we currently understand it.
GP: Then there is the simulation hypothesis that, as many have noted, is a picture of reality that is compatible with a scientific worldview but totally indistinguishable from religion.
GW: I disagree. Belief in simulation is naturalistic, while belief in religion is supernaturalistic. Those ideas are incompatible.
Nothing is supernatural, because if something exists, then it is part of nature, which is defined as all that exists.
Having said that, some natural beings or phenomena could be so far beyond our current understanding that calling them "supernatural" would be honest. How would our ancestors 100 generations ago describe our smartphones? All they could say is that we have magic devices and live in a supernatural world.
Contemporary research shows that the increase in overall entropy is the price the universe pays for the emergence of complex arrangements of matter (like you and me) that become better and better at keeping local entropy low.
The fabric of the quantum vacuum appears, indeed, to be structured in some way. It could be structured like a brain (in the sense of an arrangement of matter and energy able to process consciousness).
The natural world is likely rich enough to allow for God-like tech that is indistinguishable from magic. For example, given some form of time travel (which is NOT ruled out by science) or at least time scanning, resurrecting the dead from the past becomes a trivial engineering problem (1 scan the substrate in the past; 2 copy the information to a new substrate in the present; 3 run).
GP: Nothing is supernatural, because if something exists, then it is part of nature, which is defined as all that exists.
GW: I disagree. A thing or event would be supernatural if it behaved contrary to the known laws of nature. For example, if a human person came back to life, that would be a supernatural event because it would be contrary to the known laws of biology and psychology. However, supernatural things and events are purely hypothetical since there is no strong evidence for them.
GP: Having said that, some natural beings or phenomena could be so far beyond our current understanding that calling them "supernatural" would be honest.
GW: It might honest to call them such, but it wouldn’t be accurate. Do these things demonstrate behavior contrary to the known laws of nature?
GP: How would our ancestors 100 generations ago describe our smartphones?
GW: Devices for communication over long distances.
GP: All they could say is that we have magic devices and live in a supernatural world.
GW: Not necessarily. They could prove that they worked without understanding how they worked.
GP: Contemporary research shows that the increase in overall entropy is the price the universe pays for the emergence of complex arrangements of matter (like you and me) that become better and better at keeping local entropy low.
GW: That’s just a metaphor. The universe is not a person and does not pay prices. We can imagine a world of entropy in which the emergence of complex arrangement of matter do not occur. This is hypothetical.
GP: The fabric of the quantum vacuum appears, indeed, to be structured in some way.
GW: I think this claim is probably incorrect. The quantum vacuum appears random.
GP: It could be structured like a brain (in the sense of an arrangement of matter and energy able to process consciousness).
GW: That’s a possibility, but there is no good evidence to support that idea. Merely speculation which is unlikely to be true.
GP: The natural world is likely rich enough to allow for God-like tech that is indistinguishable from magic.
GW: I don’t think so. There are probably tests which could be conducted to distinguish a natural or tech phenomenon from magic. For example, magic would include something from nothing, as it is alleged that God produced.
GP: For example, given some form of time travel (which is NOT ruled out by science) or at least time scanning, resurrecting the dead from the past becomes a trivial engineering problem (1 scan the substrate in the past; 2 copy the information to a new substrate in the present; 3 run).
GW: Time travel is probably impossible, but if not, then extremely improbable. There is no good reason to believe that it occurs anywhere at this time. Now, it is merely hypothetical or speculative. Almost anything is possible, except for logical contradictions, e.g. a square triangle. A resurrection is logically possible, but it would be supernatural.
A natural law can't be violated, because if it is violated then it is not a law. When a natural law seems to be violated it is because it is only valid in a restricted domain, and must be replaced by more comprehensive laws outside that domain. E.g. Newton's laws are violated outside the domain of slow speeds and weak gravitational fields, where they are replaced by Einstein's laws. Relativity is not supernatural, but perfectly natural.
I think everything that exists is natural (by definition), but we still know little about nature. I think once we know much more about nature we'll be able to do natural magic (in the sense of Clarke's third law), e.g. resurrect the dead from the past.
You concede the hypothetical possibility of what I say, but you don't seem to like it. Perhaps because it sounds to much like religion? Or is it reverse wishful thinking?
I suggest to stop here. I see that I won't persuade you, and I can tell you that you won't persuade me. Time will tell - let's see what our descendants will come up with in a few million years.
Or we could make a bet - say the equivalent of 100 bucks in whatever means of exchange is used at the time/place of resurrection :-) But it would be unfair, because you could pay me if I'm right, but I couldn't pay you if you are right!
GP2: A natural law can't be violated, because if it is violated then it is not a law.
GW2: You don’t know this. You are begging the question. The best you can say is that a natural law probably has never been violated and never will be. A natural law does not control anything. It is a description of the regularities and structure of objective reality, often in mathematical format.
GP2: When a natural law seems to be violated it is because it is only valid in a restricted domain, and must be replaced by more comprehensive laws outside that domain.
GW2: Again, you are begging the question. Another possibility is that when a natural law seems to be violated, it has been violated! You cannot rule out this possibility simply by fiat. Think about what Hume said about predicting the future.
GP2: E.g. Newton's laws are violated outside the domain of slow speeds and weak gravitational fields, where they are replaced by Einstein's laws. Relativity is not supernatural, but perfectly natural.
GW2: But consider the possibility of a violation of a domain-specific natural law.
GP2: I think everything that exists is natural (by definition), but we still know little about nature.
GW2: I think we probably disagree on the definition of “natural” and “nature.” Therefore, define your terms.
GP2: I think once we know much more about nature we'll be able to do natural magic (in the sense of Clarke's third law), e.g. resurrect the dead from the past.
GW2: I doubt it. Imagine this: Suddenly, one out of every one million persons dies and comes back to life. These events occur randomly. I assert that these would be supernatural events.
GP2: You concede the hypothetical possibility of what I say, but you don't seem to like it. Perhaps because it sounds to much like religion? Or is it reverse wishful thinking?
GW2: No, I disagree with you in principle. I think you are not properly understanding or framing natural and supernatural events. Also I think that you are begging the question.
GP2: I suggest to stop here. I see that I won't persuade you, and I can tell you that you won't persuade me.
GW2: You may quit the debate anytime you wish, but if you say something which I believe is false, probably false, or irrational, then I will object. I just think your philosophical understanding of this area is mistaken.
GP2: Time will tell - let's see what our descendants will come up with in a few million years.
GW2: I do not deny that they will come up with amazing inventions and interventions, but that does not change my understanding of the difference of natural and supernatural events. I think you are trying to claim that the occurrence of supernatural events is impossible. Is that correct?
GP2: Or we could make a bet - say the equivalent of 100 bucks in whatever means of exchange is used at the time/place of resurrection :-) But it would be unfair, because you could pay me if I'm right, but I couldn't pay you if you are right!
GW2: I hope that both of us are still alive in ten years and I believe that the odds are pretty good for that. Agree? I will bet you $500 (US$) that science and technology will not be used to cause the resurrection of a human person in the next ten years. We would need to operationally define these terms: dead, alive, resurrection.
Hi Gary. I agree that any scientific theory that has ever been formulated "does not control anything" because it is but "a description of the regularities and structure of objective reality, often in mathematical format." If we define a "natural law" as a currently accepted scientific theory, then I agree with all that you say. But by "natural law" I mean whatever it is that nature really does. In this sense a natural law is never violated, by definition.
Similarly, yes, I'm claiming that the occurrence of supernatural events is impossible. Again, by definition: if something that happens seems to go against our current understanding of nature, then we just need to understand nature better. This has worked so far: lightning was considered supernatural by our ancestors long ago, but today we understand it as a perfectly natural phenomenon.
I'm open to the possibility that we might never find a final set of natural laws that can be finitely described. Reality is thicker than words indeed. But so far we have found better and better scientific theories that enable us to understand more and do more, and I see no reason this shouldn't continue indefinitely.
I can't accept your revised bet because, while I think our descendants in the far future will be able to do all sorts of natural magic, including resurrecting the dead from the past, I think this will take much more than ten years. More like 10 million years. But since $500 is not that much, I'll accept the bet if you make it 10,000 years. OK, the odds that we are still alive by that time are pretty bad...
Nicholas, if you're reading this, I recommend reading philosopher Tom Clark's essay "Death, Nothingness and Subjectivity". You cannot experience your own absence. Only experience is what's experienced... Or as Clark puts it "Consciousness is always present for itself". Clark is a naturalist like Shermer is - both believe that consciousness is a function of the brain. So we can say "brains do consciousness".... A brain was born and it started doing you (a consciousness). This is true of everyone you know. So imagine if the brain that's doing you right now was some other brain (perhaps the result of your mother meeting some other man instead of your father). So instead of the consciousness that's being done by the brain that's doing the consciousness that's reading this right now, it'd be a consciousness being done by the brain that was the result of your mom meeting some other man. You, Nicholas, wouldn't be in a black void, or "eternal nothingness", or anything like that that many atheists espouse. "Nicholas" simply wouldn't exist. There'd be someone else in Nicholas' place reading this right now. That someone else would be the "you", just as "Nicholas" is the "you" now. ...Here's a thought experiment I often use to explain it: Imagine that the entire universe is empty of all life except for you. So there's only one brain doing consciousness, and it's the brain named "Nicholas"... That's the only experience there is, period. Then you die. The one and only brain dies and thus stops doing consciousness. Then in a few years, or perhaps billions of years later, in a completely different place in the universe, a sentient organism somehow comes to exist. So now it's the only brain doing consciousness. So that's the only experience there is. Nicholas isn't in a black void, or oblivion or nothingness or darkness... All of those would require Nicholas to be transported to those places... Instead, Nicholas is completely gone. The only experience that's occuring now is the one that started after he died... The one being done by that brain that eventually came to exist after he died. Nicholas didn't "go into" that new brain... Nicholas is completely gone. It's a simple matter that the new experience/consciousness is the only experience there is, vs the one that's no longer occuring.
If you'd like to learn more about this topic you can watch my YouTube channel "NaturalisTed". Please read Clark's essay. Sam Harris also did an episode on it "The Paradox Of Death".
Well reasoned and articulated! I agree with your conclusions. Imagine that Nicholas is on his "death bed," and he asks you to come visit him before he dies. He asks you "Theodore, am I going to have an afterlife?" What would be your response?
I apologize for such a delayed response... I would say that I hope there is an afterlife. I'd say that I have no idea what that'd be like, but if there is one, I hope it's good. If he asked about "endless non-experience" or "nothingness" or a "black void", I'd let him know that if the brain is what's responsible for consciousness, then no such things are possible. Then, if he inquired further I'd explain to him what I explained above in my first comment.
I like Plato's 'The Apology of Socrates' and another's view that death is like sleeping, except one doesn't awaken. I hope to end in sleep, blissfully unaware that I've expired.
When you die - all physical systems have shut down and the neurotransmitters in your brain have stopped working– it does not mean your essence has died. Call it a soul or a spirit or an influence on the world. Your essence begins at some stage of gestation and continues long after your physical death.
To me, your essence consists of the collective memories carried by those who loved you and befriended you, and knew you, and, if you were a parent, in the genes you passed on to your descendants, and, as Clarence, Angel Second Class, showed George Bailey, in the changes you made in the world by your being a part of it; whether you had a "Wonderful Life" or not.
The Buddhists are not big on the afterlife. Here’s an excerpt from a Buddhist philosopher on that point that I found several years ago.
“Liberation is not easy, but it is the birthright of every person. Frittering away time in the heaven worlds may be enjoyable, but it is a form of spiritual gluttony. You are fulfilling your own desires and those of a powerful and often egotistical deity, but what are you doing to help the universe?
“Paradises are places for the weak and traumatized, who need shelter and cannot take life's intellectual challenges. This is why paradise deities emphasize love [as opposed to knowledge]. Only those who cannot go forward will choose to stay back forever. And paradises fulfill a valid need - the world is full of people seeking shelter.”
Wow. I need to write you a letter. Excellent. Thanks for publishing this.
What a wonderful essay! I wish I could like it twice...
But Nicholas is implying it is not enough. Your glorification of simply existing, and even thriving, is just not enough for most people, in my opinion.
But it should be enough. Just look around and open your eyes and mind. The Grand Canyon isn't enough? A 3,500-year old giant sequoia isn't enough? Bach's Brandenburg Concertos aren't enough? The love of your children and/or dog isn't enough?
Not enough when they are all taken away...
Enjoy them while you can. Don't worry about losing them. You can't do anything about that anyway. When you are dead you won't have any sadness or grief about losing them. You won't have any feelings at all.
Obviously easier said than done....
All the more reason to appreciate life while you're alive instead of seeing life as a "preparation" for something else -- especially when that something else is almost certainly darkness and nothingness.
Such "darkness" would be a persistent state... Who'd be there seeing said darkness? I suggest reading philosopher Tom Clark's essay "Death, Nothingness and Subjectivity".
There would be no experience of darkness. There would be no experience at all. The end of subjective experience.
But the darkness and nothingness cramps my fun...
But wanting, wishing, and hoping do not make it so. I think belief in an afterlife makes it harder for most people to be as happy and productive in this life as they could be.
It is not easy rereading Michael's essay as I lost my 27 year old son on Dec 26.
I will grieve for his presence and his wonderful life for the rest of my life as is right for a sentient being.
I dream of a Heaven for him, but that is my dream as a living being.
As Michael stated, we must grab and cherish the 'here and now', not the lies of organized religion that has only one purpose: profiting by power and wealth over our humanness and our love for our children.
"Imagine where you were before you were born. . . You can no more visualize yourself after you die than you can picture yourself before you were born."
You say this often on your show, so I have to take this opportunity to dispute it: having been in an accident where I lost consciousness, I awoke in the ER with no memories of the previous several hours (prior to the accident). At that time, I had the very visceral realization that if I had died, that that would have been it - just like it was, but with no waking up. Losing that continuity of self was very profound, and I remember what it was like to have . . . not been? for a while. For what it's worth, it lessened my fear of death - the knowledge that I experienced what it was like, and it was okay.
(Of course, I make the assumption that my experience was like death - I obviously did not die, but as I believe that there is no individual continuity after death, I thus equate my experience to it.)
That gives me some comfort. I'm scared of non-existence but im a very young man of 23 and I will have to experience it first before I decide I dont like it. Not that im going to get into any accidents or anything!
Excellent article, Michael. I will make a few comments on quotes.
MS: Imagine where you were before you were born. You can’t because you didn’t exist before you were born.
GW: I disagree. You did exist before you were born. You existed as a human organism from conception to about 24 weeks post conception. And then you existed as a human person from then to birth.
MS: If you are dead you are neither. You can no more visualize yourself after you die than you can picture yourself before you were born.
GW: I can now visualize myself after I have died – slowly disintegrating or cremated, but I could not visualize anything after I have died. I can picture myself before I was born, floating in the womb, but I could not picture myself when I was there.
MS: ...and said copy were uploaded to the cloud and turned on (none of this is even remotely possible),...
GW: I think it is possible and that it will probably be done some day, maybe in a thousand years. But you are correct – it would be a copy of you, not you.
MS: I might also comment briefly on the idea of living “forever” in “eternity.” Most people don’t give this much thought, content with the enchanted notion of continuing on in some state with those we love forever.
GW: I think about it. I would like to go on living indefinitely, if I could opt out at any time. I’d like to be able to choose with whom to interact, not being forced to be with some family members and others.
MS: Forever is a long time to be blissfully bored.
GW: Yes, but in my heaven there would always be new things to learn and new challenges and problems to solve.
MS: Nicholas, I don’t know what will happen to you after you die. No one does. Maybe there is an afterlife, maybe there isn’t.
GW: You make it sound like the odds are even, when they are not. The odds are very much against there being an afterlife, given what we know about the dependency of the mind on the brain. I think you gave the guy too much hope of an afterlife. Belief in an afterlife can be toxic, e.g. 9-11 terrorists.
WLC: There’s no moral accountability. The universe is neither better nor worse for what we do.
GW: I disagree. Our Earth and humankind, both parts of the universe, might be either better or worse for what we do. Look at the case of MLK Jr. Or Einstein.
MS: In this sense, evolution bestowed upon us a moral and purpose-driven life by dint of the laws of nature. We do not need any source higher than that to find meaning or morality.
GW: Yes! Well stated!
MS: In the end, Nicholas, you will never know for certain that there is an afterlife, but you can take some comfort in knowing that no one else knows for sure either.
GW: “Never” is a long time. If he goes into an afterlife, then he will know. Even in this life if science discovers there will be an afterlife, then he will know. “Never” is an error, IMHO.
This is good philosophical consolation, but perhaps Nicholas is looking for more than philosophical consolation. I guess he is looking for confirmation that there's some kind of continuation of existence after death.
As you say, nobody can offer him this confirmation. Like you, "I don’t know what will happen to you after you die. No one does. Maybe there is an afterlife, maybe there isn’t."
What we can do to offer consolation to Nicholas and many, many people like him, is to say that hope in some kind of continuation of existence after death is non inconsistent with what we know about the universe we live in.
As you say in your book, very advanced natural being evolved in the universe would be indistinguishable from God. This means that our own descendants could become God-like and master super-advanced (and unimaginable to us) sci/tech that could enable them to resurrect the dead from the past.
There could also be natural processes that copy and continue to run minds in other substrates after a biological brain ceases to function. The new substrate could be, conceivably, the bare fabric of the quantum vacuum, or (more likely) something even weirder.
Then there is the simulation hypothesis that, as many have noted, is a picture of reality that is compatible with a scientific worldview but totally indistinguishable from religion. A simulation cosmology can accommodate all parts of all religions, first and foremost life after death.
Nicholas, if you are reading this: I can't offer you confirmation, but I can offer you my conviction that this is a consistent worldview. If you want more (and I most certainly want much more), then well, time will tell.
GP: What we can do to offer consolation to Nicholas and many, many people like him, is to say that hope in some kind of continuation of existence after death is non inconsistent with what we know about the universe we live in.
GW: Your claim is false. Continuation of existence, i.e. individual subjective experience, is INCONSISTENT with what we know about the universe we live in. We know the fact of increasing entropy. We know the fact of the dependency of mind on brain. These facts go against your claim.
GP: As you say in your book, very advanced natural being evolved in the universe would be indistinguishable from God.
GW: The former is natural, but the latter is supernatural. I think there could be tests to distinguish the difference. For example, which of the two is subject to entropy?
GP: The new substrate could be, conceivably, the bare fabric of the quantum vacuum, or (more likely) something even weirder.
GW: I disagree. The substrate would have to be organized or structured in some way, just like the brain is, not like the fabric of the quantum vacuum, as we currently understand it.
GP: Then there is the simulation hypothesis that, as many have noted, is a picture of reality that is compatible with a scientific worldview but totally indistinguishable from religion.
GW: I disagree. Belief in simulation is naturalistic, while belief in religion is supernaturalistic. Those ideas are incompatible.
Nothing is supernatural, because if something exists, then it is part of nature, which is defined as all that exists.
Having said that, some natural beings or phenomena could be so far beyond our current understanding that calling them "supernatural" would be honest. How would our ancestors 100 generations ago describe our smartphones? All they could say is that we have magic devices and live in a supernatural world.
Contemporary research shows that the increase in overall entropy is the price the universe pays for the emergence of complex arrangements of matter (like you and me) that become better and better at keeping local entropy low.
The fabric of the quantum vacuum appears, indeed, to be structured in some way. It could be structured like a brain (in the sense of an arrangement of matter and energy able to process consciousness).
The natural world is likely rich enough to allow for God-like tech that is indistinguishable from magic. For example, given some form of time travel (which is NOT ruled out by science) or at least time scanning, resurrecting the dead from the past becomes a trivial engineering problem (1 scan the substrate in the past; 2 copy the information to a new substrate in the present; 3 run).
GP: Nothing is supernatural, because if something exists, then it is part of nature, which is defined as all that exists.
GW: I disagree. A thing or event would be supernatural if it behaved contrary to the known laws of nature. For example, if a human person came back to life, that would be a supernatural event because it would be contrary to the known laws of biology and psychology. However, supernatural things and events are purely hypothetical since there is no strong evidence for them.
GP: Having said that, some natural beings or phenomena could be so far beyond our current understanding that calling them "supernatural" would be honest.
GW: It might honest to call them such, but it wouldn’t be accurate. Do these things demonstrate behavior contrary to the known laws of nature?
GP: How would our ancestors 100 generations ago describe our smartphones?
GW: Devices for communication over long distances.
GP: All they could say is that we have magic devices and live in a supernatural world.
GW: Not necessarily. They could prove that they worked without understanding how they worked.
GP: Contemporary research shows that the increase in overall entropy is the price the universe pays for the emergence of complex arrangements of matter (like you and me) that become better and better at keeping local entropy low.
GW: That’s just a metaphor. The universe is not a person and does not pay prices. We can imagine a world of entropy in which the emergence of complex arrangement of matter do not occur. This is hypothetical.
GP: The fabric of the quantum vacuum appears, indeed, to be structured in some way.
GW: I think this claim is probably incorrect. The quantum vacuum appears random.
GP: It could be structured like a brain (in the sense of an arrangement of matter and energy able to process consciousness).
GW: That’s a possibility, but there is no good evidence to support that idea. Merely speculation which is unlikely to be true.
GP: The natural world is likely rich enough to allow for God-like tech that is indistinguishable from magic.
GW: I don’t think so. There are probably tests which could be conducted to distinguish a natural or tech phenomenon from magic. For example, magic would include something from nothing, as it is alleged that God produced.
GP: For example, given some form of time travel (which is NOT ruled out by science) or at least time scanning, resurrecting the dead from the past becomes a trivial engineering problem (1 scan the substrate in the past; 2 copy the information to a new substrate in the present; 3 run).
GW: Time travel is probably impossible, but if not, then extremely improbable. There is no good reason to believe that it occurs anywhere at this time. Now, it is merely hypothetical or speculative. Almost anything is possible, except for logical contradictions, e.g. a square triangle. A resurrection is logically possible, but it would be supernatural.
A natural law can't be violated, because if it is violated then it is not a law. When a natural law seems to be violated it is because it is only valid in a restricted domain, and must be replaced by more comprehensive laws outside that domain. E.g. Newton's laws are violated outside the domain of slow speeds and weak gravitational fields, where they are replaced by Einstein's laws. Relativity is not supernatural, but perfectly natural.
I think everything that exists is natural (by definition), but we still know little about nature. I think once we know much more about nature we'll be able to do natural magic (in the sense of Clarke's third law), e.g. resurrect the dead from the past.
You concede the hypothetical possibility of what I say, but you don't seem to like it. Perhaps because it sounds to much like religion? Or is it reverse wishful thinking?
I suggest to stop here. I see that I won't persuade you, and I can tell you that you won't persuade me. Time will tell - let's see what our descendants will come up with in a few million years.
Or we could make a bet - say the equivalent of 100 bucks in whatever means of exchange is used at the time/place of resurrection :-) But it would be unfair, because you could pay me if I'm right, but I couldn't pay you if you are right!
GP2: A natural law can't be violated, because if it is violated then it is not a law.
GW2: You don’t know this. You are begging the question. The best you can say is that a natural law probably has never been violated and never will be. A natural law does not control anything. It is a description of the regularities and structure of objective reality, often in mathematical format.
GP2: When a natural law seems to be violated it is because it is only valid in a restricted domain, and must be replaced by more comprehensive laws outside that domain.
GW2: Again, you are begging the question. Another possibility is that when a natural law seems to be violated, it has been violated! You cannot rule out this possibility simply by fiat. Think about what Hume said about predicting the future.
GP2: E.g. Newton's laws are violated outside the domain of slow speeds and weak gravitational fields, where they are replaced by Einstein's laws. Relativity is not supernatural, but perfectly natural.
GW2: But consider the possibility of a violation of a domain-specific natural law.
GP2: I think everything that exists is natural (by definition), but we still know little about nature.
GW2: I think we probably disagree on the definition of “natural” and “nature.” Therefore, define your terms.
GP2: I think once we know much more about nature we'll be able to do natural magic (in the sense of Clarke's third law), e.g. resurrect the dead from the past.
GW2: I doubt it. Imagine this: Suddenly, one out of every one million persons dies and comes back to life. These events occur randomly. I assert that these would be supernatural events.
GP2: You concede the hypothetical possibility of what I say, but you don't seem to like it. Perhaps because it sounds to much like religion? Or is it reverse wishful thinking?
GW2: No, I disagree with you in principle. I think you are not properly understanding or framing natural and supernatural events. Also I think that you are begging the question.
GP2: I suggest to stop here. I see that I won't persuade you, and I can tell you that you won't persuade me.
GW2: You may quit the debate anytime you wish, but if you say something which I believe is false, probably false, or irrational, then I will object. I just think your philosophical understanding of this area is mistaken.
GP2: Time will tell - let's see what our descendants will come up with in a few million years.
GW2: I do not deny that they will come up with amazing inventions and interventions, but that does not change my understanding of the difference of natural and supernatural events. I think you are trying to claim that the occurrence of supernatural events is impossible. Is that correct?
GP2: Or we could make a bet - say the equivalent of 100 bucks in whatever means of exchange is used at the time/place of resurrection :-) But it would be unfair, because you could pay me if I'm right, but I couldn't pay you if you are right!
GW2: I hope that both of us are still alive in ten years and I believe that the odds are pretty good for that. Agree? I will bet you $500 (US$) that science and technology will not be used to cause the resurrection of a human person in the next ten years. We would need to operationally define these terms: dead, alive, resurrection.
Hi Gary. I agree that any scientific theory that has ever been formulated "does not control anything" because it is but "a description of the regularities and structure of objective reality, often in mathematical format." If we define a "natural law" as a currently accepted scientific theory, then I agree with all that you say. But by "natural law" I mean whatever it is that nature really does. In this sense a natural law is never violated, by definition.
Similarly, yes, I'm claiming that the occurrence of supernatural events is impossible. Again, by definition: if something that happens seems to go against our current understanding of nature, then we just need to understand nature better. This has worked so far: lightning was considered supernatural by our ancestors long ago, but today we understand it as a perfectly natural phenomenon.
I'm open to the possibility that we might never find a final set of natural laws that can be finitely described. Reality is thicker than words indeed. But so far we have found better and better scientific theories that enable us to understand more and do more, and I see no reason this shouldn't continue indefinitely.
I can't accept your revised bet because, while I think our descendants in the far future will be able to do all sorts of natural magic, including resurrecting the dead from the past, I think this will take much more than ten years. More like 10 million years. But since $500 is not that much, I'll accept the bet if you make it 10,000 years. OK, the odds that we are still alive by that time are pretty bad...
Nicholas, if you're reading this, I recommend reading philosopher Tom Clark's essay "Death, Nothingness and Subjectivity". You cannot experience your own absence. Only experience is what's experienced... Or as Clark puts it "Consciousness is always present for itself". Clark is a naturalist like Shermer is - both believe that consciousness is a function of the brain. So we can say "brains do consciousness".... A brain was born and it started doing you (a consciousness). This is true of everyone you know. So imagine if the brain that's doing you right now was some other brain (perhaps the result of your mother meeting some other man instead of your father). So instead of the consciousness that's being done by the brain that's doing the consciousness that's reading this right now, it'd be a consciousness being done by the brain that was the result of your mom meeting some other man. You, Nicholas, wouldn't be in a black void, or "eternal nothingness", or anything like that that many atheists espouse. "Nicholas" simply wouldn't exist. There'd be someone else in Nicholas' place reading this right now. That someone else would be the "you", just as "Nicholas" is the "you" now. ...Here's a thought experiment I often use to explain it: Imagine that the entire universe is empty of all life except for you. So there's only one brain doing consciousness, and it's the brain named "Nicholas"... That's the only experience there is, period. Then you die. The one and only brain dies and thus stops doing consciousness. Then in a few years, or perhaps billions of years later, in a completely different place in the universe, a sentient organism somehow comes to exist. So now it's the only brain doing consciousness. So that's the only experience there is. Nicholas isn't in a black void, or oblivion or nothingness or darkness... All of those would require Nicholas to be transported to those places... Instead, Nicholas is completely gone. The only experience that's occuring now is the one that started after he died... The one being done by that brain that eventually came to exist after he died. Nicholas didn't "go into" that new brain... Nicholas is completely gone. It's a simple matter that the new experience/consciousness is the only experience there is, vs the one that's no longer occuring.
If you'd like to learn more about this topic you can watch my YouTube channel "NaturalisTed". Please read Clark's essay. Sam Harris also did an episode on it "The Paradox Of Death".
Well reasoned and articulated! I agree with your conclusions. Imagine that Nicholas is on his "death bed," and he asks you to come visit him before he dies. He asks you "Theodore, am I going to have an afterlife?" What would be your response?
I apologize for such a delayed response... I would say that I hope there is an afterlife. I'd say that I have no idea what that'd be like, but if there is one, I hope it's good. If he asked about "endless non-experience" or "nothingness" or a "black void", I'd let him know that if the brain is what's responsible for consciousness, then no such things are possible. Then, if he inquired further I'd explain to him what I explained above in my first comment.
Thank you for this lovely and unusual essay.
I like Plato's 'The Apology of Socrates' and another's view that death is like sleeping, except one doesn't awaken. I hope to end in sleep, blissfully unaware that I've expired.
When you die - all physical systems have shut down and the neurotransmitters in your brain have stopped working– it does not mean your essence has died. Call it a soul or a spirit or an influence on the world. Your essence begins at some stage of gestation and continues long after your physical death.
To me, your essence consists of the collective memories carried by those who loved you and befriended you, and knew you, and, if you were a parent, in the genes you passed on to your descendants, and, as Clarence, Angel Second Class, showed George Bailey, in the changes you made in the world by your being a part of it; whether you had a "Wonderful Life" or not.
The Buddhists are not big on the afterlife. Here’s an excerpt from a Buddhist philosopher on that point that I found several years ago.
“Liberation is not easy, but it is the birthright of every person. Frittering away time in the heaven worlds may be enjoyable, but it is a form of spiritual gluttony. You are fulfilling your own desires and those of a powerful and often egotistical deity, but what are you doing to help the universe?
“Paradises are places for the weak and traumatized, who need shelter and cannot take life's intellectual challenges. This is why paradise deities emphasize love [as opposed to knowledge]. Only those who cannot go forward will choose to stay back forever. And paradises fulfill a valid need - the world is full of people seeking shelter.”
Great essay!
Lord.