In, reality, consciousness is actuated by, and dependent on, the brain--and that when the brain dies, the mind dies with it. As Keith Augustine explains in his article, “The Case Against Immortality”:
“Modern science demonstrates the dependence of consciousness on the brain, verifying that the mind must die with the body. . . .
“Barry Beyerstein points out that the view ‘that consciousness is inseparable from the functioning of individual brains remains the cornerstone of physiological psychology’ (Beyerstein, p. 44). . . .
“Beyerstein lists five main types of empirical evidence which support the dependence of consciousness on the brain.
“First, phylogenetic evidence refers to the evolutionary relationship between the complexity of the brain and a species' cognitive traits (Beyerstein, p. 45).
"Corliss Lamont sums up this evidence:
"‘We find that the greater the size of the brain and its cerebral cortex in relation to the animal body and the greater their complexity, the higher and more versatile the form of life' (Lamont, p. 63).
“Second, the developmental evidence for mind-brain dependence is that mental abilities emerge with the development of the brain; failure in brain development prevents mental development’ (Beyerstein, p. 45).
“Third, clinical evidence consists of cases of brain damage that result from accidents, toxins, diseases, and malnutrition that often result in irreversible losses of mental functioning (p. 45). If the mind could exist independently of the brain, why couldn't the mind compensate for lost faculties when brain cells die after brain damage? (p. 46).
“Fourth, the strongest empirical evidence for mind-brain dependence is derived from experiments in neuroscience. Mental states are correlated with brain states; electrical or chemical stimulation of the human brain invokes perceptions, memories, desires and other mental states (p. 45).
“Finally, the experiential evidence for mind-brain dependence consists of the effects of several different types of drugs which predictably affect mental states (p. 45).
“Memory is essential to self-identity. Electrical or chemical stimulation of the brain can prevent the formation of new memories and cause memory loss for events that occurred up to three years before such intervention (Stokes, p. 71). Neuroscientists have accumulated a considerable amount of evidence that long-term memory traces ‘are dependent upon, and perhaps consist of, changes in the strengths of synaptic connections among neurons’ (Stokes, p. 73).
"Lamont argues that because:
“’The proper functioning of memory . . . depends . . . on the associational patterns laid down as enduring structural imprints through means of inter-neuronic connections . . . [I]t is difficult beyond measure to understand how they could survive after the destruction of the living brain in which they had their original locus’ (Lamont, p. 76).
“Further experimental evidence for mind-brain dependence is derived from ‘split-brain’ patients who have undergone an operation that severs the corpus callosum to reduce epileptic seizures (Beyerstein, p. 45). The corpus callosum is a broad band of fibers that directly connect the left and right hemispheres of the brain. If information is only presented to one hemisphere of a ‘split-brain’ patient, the other hemisphere is unaware of it and is not capable of understanding the reactions of the informed hemisphere (p. 45).
“The result of ‘split-brain’ surgery is the formation of two mental systems, each with independent mental attributes (p. 45). A variety of psychological tests corroborate the existence of two streams of consciousness demonstrably unaware of the contents of the other (Parfit, p. 248). To give a humorous example, ‘one of the patients complained that sometimes, when he embraced his wife, his left hand pushed her away’ (Parfit, p. 249). Beyerstein asks: ‘If a 'free-floating' mind exists, why can't it maintain unity of consciousness by providing an information conduit between the disconnected hemispheres?’ (Beyerstein, p. 46).
“One of the strongest arguments for mind-brain dependence comes from the effects of ‘brain pacemakers’ which electrically stimulate the cerebellum in the brains of psychotics (Hooper and Teresi, p. 154).
"The following case illustrates these effects:
“’Another patient, a severely depressed former physicist, was troubled by voices that commanded him to choke his wife. When he got one of Dr. Heath's pacemakers in 1977, the infernal voices vanished, along with his perennial gloom. . . . But his wires eventually broke, and once again his wife was threatened with strangulation. When the gadgetry was mended, so was the man's psyche’ (Hooper and Teresi, p. 155).
“These are just a few examples from neuroscience of the dependence of consciousness on the brain. We know that altering the brain's chemistry can cause drastic personality changes. Schizophrenia and Alzheimer's disease are dramatic examples of mind-brain dependence. If you are thinking of suicide, don't go to a psychiatrist, go to a pharmacologist: A combination of an antidepressant and tryptophan should banish all thoughts of ending your life (Hooper and Teresi 171).
“Survival proponents who think that the brain is an instrument of the soul use arguments like the following in an attempt to reconcile physiology and the soul:
“’A colored glass . . . [has] only a transmissive function in respect to the light that shines through [it], since [it does not itself] create the rays. The same may be said of an organ, which transforms already existing air into music. In a similar fashion the human body may act as a transmission apparatus for the supernatural soul’ (Lamont, p. 98).
“Corliss Lamont makes it apparent that this rejoinder has no force:
“’A severe injury to the head, for instance, may change an ordinarily cheerful man into a sullen and morose one subject to sudden fits of homicidal mania. If the brain and body are simply the instruments of the soul, we have to say in such a case that this personality is really still brimming over with joy and benevolence, but that unfortunately these sentiments can only express themselves in dark glances, in peevish complaints and in violent attacks’ (Lamont, p. 100).
"Lamont continues:
“’Suppose . . . [he] becomes definitely insane . . .[and] is convinced he is Napoleon. . . . Are we to say that his real personality is still normal, that his soul is still thinking clearly and healthily and that as soon as he gets rid of his body by dying he will come to his senses?’ (p. 100).
“The illustrations of the ‘instrument theory’ reveal a fatal flaw:
“’If the human body corresponds to a colored glass, . . . then the living personality corresponds to the colored light that is the result of the glass . . . . Now, while light, in general, will continue to exist without the colored glass, . . . the specific red or blue or yellow rays that the glass produces . . . will certainly not persist if the glass [is] destroyed’ (Lamont, p. 104).
“The consequences of the instrument theory are absurd. Throughout aging, specific mental abilities may be irrevocably lost one-by-one:
“’Yet, if instead of the senses being destroyed separately and gradually by disease or accident, they are all simultaneously destroyed by death, the dualistic immortalist asks us to believe that they will go on in some other state with unimpaired, if not greatly improved, capabilities!’ (Lamont, p. 102).
“Paul Edwards asks: ‘How does the complete destruction of the brain bring about a cure that has so far totally eluded medical science?’ (Edwards, ‘Dependence,’ p. 296).
“Edwards argues that the instrument theory is inconsistent with Alzheimer's disease:
“’An Alzheimer patient's brain is severely damaged and most of his mind has disappeared. After his death his brain is not merely damaged but completely destroyed. It is surely logical to conclude that now his mind is also gone’ (p. 296).
“If under certain circumstances the mind cannot survive in life, how can it survive death? Edwards provides a clear illustration of the incompatibility of the instrument theory with the facts of Alzheimer's disease. Prior to her affliction with Alzheimer's, ‘Mrs. D’ was a considerate, compassionate person with a normal functioning mind.
"Yet:
“’At about the time when she could no longer recognize her daughter, she beat up [a] paralyzed lady on two or three occasions . . . . [The instrument theory] implies that throughout her affliction with Alzheimer's, Mrs. D.'s mind was intact. She recognized her daughter but had lost her ability to express this recognition. She had no wish to beat up an inoffensive paralyzed old woman. On the contrary, 'inside' she was the same considerate person as before the onset of the illness. It is simply that her brain disease prevented her from acting in accordance with her true emotions . . . . [T]hese are the implications of the theory that the mind survives the death of the brain and that the brain is only an instrument for communication. Surely these consequences are absurd’ (pp. 299-300).
“Other survival proponents concede the evidence for mind-brain dependence but try to avoid the implication of personal extinction at death.
“Douglas Stokes, for example, writes:
“’[T]he intimate dependency of one's personality on the state of the brain makes it appear unlikely that one's personality and memories could remain largely intact following the destruction of the brain. However, memories, feelings, behavioral dispositions, and other personality traits are probably not the aspects of the mind that should be identified with an unchanging self . . . . . It would seem that the self must be what Hart called the “I thinker,” that entity that thinks one's thoughts, senses one's sensations, feels one's feelings and remembers one's memories rather than being the thoughts, sensations, feelings, and memories themselves’ (Stokes, p. 76).
“Stokes' attempt to leave room for survival while acknowledging the strong and consistent evidence for mind-brain dependence is disingenuous.
“By accepting the implications of this evidence, Stokes has cut off the possibility of any form of PERSONAL survival (resurrection aside). Once an individual has been stripped of his memories, dispositions, mental skills and personality traits, nothing but a tabula rasa remains. Such a 'blank slate' could not be a vehicle of personal survival; the mind of a deceased individual would be reduced to something like the mind of an infant, only divorced from any means to perceive or interact with its environment.
“Most of us would regard the reduction of the mind of a productive adult to the mind of an infant while alive as a tragedy as great as that of death itself; thus the bare existence Stokes allows for the mind after death would hardly be better than extinction.
“In fact, it seems unintelligible to claim that a particular individual has 'survived' his death once all of his distinctive mental characteristics have been erased (a particularly poignant problem for the idea of reincarnation). The continued existence of an 'undifferentiated self' lacking the mental traits which uniquely characterize a particular individual does not constitute personal survival anymore than the continued existence of one's bones does.
“William Hasker takes a different approach. He, too, concedes the evidence for the dependence of consciousness on the brain:
“’Whereas dualism has been above all concerned to assert the INDEPENDENCE of mind from body, both scientific findings and everyday observation combine to show the mind's DEPENDENCE on bodily conditions. A partial listing of relevant data would include: the dependence of personality states on hormone balance, the genetic determination by DNA structure of mental attributes and defects, the effects of drugs on mental states, personality changes in persons who have undergone such operations as frontal leucotomy or temporal leucotomy . . . . [T]hese findings . . . taken as a body . . . demonstrate a profound and comprehensive dependence of the mental, emotional, and even the spiritual aspects of human personality on its biological basis in the human brain and nervous system’ (Hasker, p. 306).
“How does Hasker try to reconcile the evidence for mind-brain dependence with the survival hypothesis? His contention that ‘while originally produced by the brain and dependent upon it in many respects, the mind is nevertheless capable of continuing to exist and to function without the brain after the death of the body’ seems unintelligible (p. 307). As he himself asks, ‘If . . . the mind or soul is generated by the brain and is dependent on it in all the ways already emphasized, how can it fail to perish with the brain?’ (p. 307).
“Although Hasker never satisfactorily answers this question, he does provide an analogy to try to explain his conclusion:
“’A black hole . . . is an incredibly intense gravitational field which is originally generated by a massive object but which, once it has formed, literally squeezes the object out of existence. Thus, according to Roger Penrose, “After the body has collapsed in, it is better to think of the black hole as a self-sustaining gravitational field in its own right. It has no further use for the body which originally built it!” Could the human mind, then, like the black hole, become a SLEF-SUSTAINING field of consciousness?’ (p. 308)
“What are we to make of this analogy? I am afraid that there are far too many dissimilarities between the mind and a black hole to draw any reliable conclusions about the mind-brain relationship.
“For example, a black hole is created when the collapsing star which generated it is destroyed. The brain, on the other hand, is not destroyed when the mind comes into existence.
“The black hole and the star which created it do not exist SIMULTANEOUSLY, unlike the mind and the brain. More poignantly, however, when the mind comes into existence, on this analogy, it should no longer need the brain ONCE IT IS CREATED--that is, even BEFORE the brain is destroyed.
“The black hole analogy, like that of a child which grew in the womb but no longer depends on the womb for sustenance after birth, is an example of generation without CONTINUING dependence. The mind-brain relationship, on the other hand, is an example of both the generation AND continuing dependence of the mind on the brain. This relationship is captured more closely by the analogy of the dependence of a magnetic field on a magnet; but since the magnetic field ceases to exist when the magnet is destroyed, it is not surprising that Hasker rejects the closer analogy in order to avoid its consequences.
“If the mind depends on the brain throughout life then, in all probability, it depends on the brain even as death approaches. The mere fact that the human organism may be approaching death is not going to suddenly transform the mind into an independent entity which no longer needs the brain to function.
“The dependence of mental states on the brain during life strongly implies that when the brain dies the mind dies with it, just as a non-duplicated computer program ceases to exist when the computer it runs on is completely destroyed. Thus the evidence for the CONTINUED dependence of consciousness on the brain provides strong evidential support for the extinction hypothesis.
“One last point to make about the implausibility of survival given our knowledge of our evolutionary heritage is that:
“It is patently absurd to expect that all the myriad specimens of all the myriad species of life from the beginning of evolution are to go on existing forever in another world. Yet, we are led into just such absurdities when we once start relying on the dualistic theory that man has an immortal soul . . .that can exist independently of the body (Lamont, p. 117).
“Neuroscientists agree that the facts cited above ARE, Indeed, facts. Furthermore, scientists outside of neuroscience do not dispute that cases demonstrating the dependence of consciousness on the brain are valid.
“On the other hand, ‘most scientists outside of the parapsychological field do not accept the existence of psychic phenomena’ (‘Parapsychology’). Even within parapsychology, we find few parapsychologists who believe that psi is indicative of survival of bodily death[. John Beloff states that:
“’It should not be thought . . . that all parapsychologists are necessarily committed to a dualist interpretation of the mind-body relationship. At the present time, especially, many exponents prefer to think of psi as essentially a function of the brain, or of some special brain mechanism or process ‘(Beloff, ‘Parapsychology,’ p. 586).
“In other words, even most parapsychologists accept the dependence of consciousness on the brain! This leaves the survival hypothesis in an awkward position since paranormal phenomena are the best source of evidence that survival proponents have to offer.
“Even if one is inclined to believe that paranormal phenomena are best explained in terms of survival, the existence of such phenomena is doubtful because ‘a century after the founding of the Society for Psychical Research, there is still a total lack of consensus regarding the actuality of any parapsychological phenomena’ (Beloff, ‘Parapsychology,’ p. 586).
‘This lack of consensus is due to the lack of evidence for psi [paranormal phenomena]:
“With the single exception of hypnosis, not even the existence of one of the phenomena originally classed as supernatural, or later as paranormal, has achieved general acceptance among the scientific community; not one demonstrable, or repeatable, paranormal effect has been discovered; not one characteristic or law has been found which turns up in all those experiments that claim a positive result (Scott, p. 579).
“I think I have presented a fairly accurate representation of the evidence on both sides of this issue, and in weighing that evidence the scales are clearly tipped in favor of extinction. . . . We should not allow our emotions to cloud our judgment.
As Corliss Lamont says:
“’We do not ask to be born; and we do not ask to die. But born we are and die we must. We come into existence and we pass out of existence. And in neither case does high-handed fate await our ratification of its decree.’ (Lamont, p. 278).
(Keith Augustine, “The Case Against Immortality,” original emphasis, at:
http://infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/immortality.html)
_____
Conclusion:
None of this energy-brain reality sounds like the engine for "theistic creation," as you yourself framed the discussion in the subject line of your OP.
And it certainly doesn't sound like "theism," which is defined by Webster as "a belief in a god or gods."
Need I point out to you that your own lower-cased "god" presents itself as entirely materialistic? If "god"/"God" is responsible for having "theistically created" energy and consciousness, then scientifically prove it. If you are of the view that they both just exist as they "are" without explanation or demonstration of their origin, then that's just faith, not science.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/17/2014 08:33AM by steve benson.