Posted by:
Henry Bemis
(
)
Date: September 06, 2018 01:00PM
Hie stated:
"Traditional OBEs provide no such evidence. They provide evidence of something that is experienced -- they provide no evidence of any kind that what is experienced (in the brain) occurs "outside" a body, or that there's a "soul," or that there's survival of death." (Claim H)
COMMENT: Suppose someone were to question the evidential status of the result of a scientific experiment, by saying,
"Such experiment provides evidence of what you experienced as part of an experiment, however, this experiment provides no evidence of any kind that what you experienced (in the brain) reflects any reality outside the brain, or that there is a reality out there that exists separate from your experience." (Claim R)
How does someone like Hie attack Claim R while preserving his Claim H? After all, both reflect conclusions drawn from personal experience, and both rely upon the necessity of brain function. In support of such a distinction, Hie might appeal to the scientific principles of verification and/or replication. But in doing so he would only be compounding the personal experiences of other scientists, not removing science from personal experience, or from the brain. Moreover, the NDE claimant might call attention to the thousands of others who have had NDEs and have inferred a soul.
Making an inference that "there is a soul" from a NDE experience is to claim a reality that is connected to that experience in the same way that a scientist discovering a natural law claims that there is a reality connected to her experience. The fact that the scientist's experience is drawn from a sophisticated experimental context does not change the fact that it is still her experience, and ultimately the subjectivity of consciousness is at play. Moreover, both inferences reflect an outside reality the details of which are ultimately and inherently elusive.
So, the idea that a NDE experience is "just evidence of what is experienced, and provides no evidence of any kind that what is experienced occurs outside the body," provides no relevant distinction whatsoever between a scientific inference of a natural law, and a NDE inference to a soul.
One other tempting distinction is that the NDE inference of a soul is not itself subject to the experimental resources of science; i.e. it is not "physical" (in the broad sense of modern science), or measurable, and therefore invalid as "evidence." But that criticism assumes a "materialist" bias; i.e. that the only reality out there is scientific reality. Such an insistence is problematic in two obvious ways. First, it requires a denial of consciousness, the very vehicle that allows science to proceed. Second, it begs the question, because the NDE inference is precisely about a reality that transcends science. It is like saying, "The NDE inference of a soul is wrong on its face because it postulates an existence that is not verifiable by science." But, that is precisely what is at issue.
The upshot of all of this is a realization that the only claim science can legitimately make about reality is within the scope of its own limited resources; in two words, mathematics and measurement. And all such claims assume both (1) the reality of consciousness, and (2) that there is some objective ultimate reality out there that can be measured. Note, however, that both of these assumptions are metaphysical assumptions that themselves stand outside of science. Regarding (1) consciousness is not part of physics and is not measurable. Regarding (2) modern science, particular Quantum Mechanic's, calls into question just what objective reality amounts to.
The above reflects the inherent limitations of science, and suggests the appropriateness of humility in the face of the vagaries of human experience, including NDEs.