Advocate for the Afterlife:
In the preceding sessions we have heard a brief summary of the substantial evidence that some aspect of consciousness appears to survive after bodily death. But to put it on firm ground, we need a theory to interpret this evidence. For this session we would like to call physicist Dr Pier-Francesco Moretti:
Dr Moretti:
Interpretation of the facts depends on the assumptions we make and on the context in which we are embedded. Let me start with an example.
“Yesterday, my neighbors told me that a donkey was flying in the sky".
Is it true that a donkey flew yesterday? Did they really see it? Can a donkey fly?
As a scientist, I would start from the last question and ask myself if I can reproduce the phenomenon in any experiment. If not, or if any experiment does not confirm the hypothesis, I would look for the presence of any objective detection of the event, preferably independent from human cognitive bias. Based on a backward analysis, I would focus on what motivated the neighbors to report a flying donkey. Was it a donkey? Was it really flying or an optical effect?
Most of the evidence for the survival of consciousness is in the form of “reports”, that is “stories” and these stories are told by humans.
NDEs and reincarnation are reported by people of all ages, ethical groups, religions, cultures and in different historical periods. Many report passing through a tunnel of light and meeting deceased relatives. Others report that they were unable to sequence their memories of the experience, and that they probably organized the story according to some logic. Often they report having seen their own bodies on the ground while flying above.
I immediately note that these are personal stories, strongly influenced by the fears and desires of the individuals who reported them. However, statistically speaking, I have to admit that, although these stories are strange, their recurrence is high and the commonalities can hide something that we are not yet able to explain or even is incompatible with our current scientific models. What we do not understand can still exist!
In many cases, these accounts were reported by patients who were well monitored in equipped hospital rooms, as Peter Fenwick mentioned earlier. Patients reported real events while their brain functions were diagnosed as absent and vital functions were assisted by machines.
To make the story short, whether they were alone or in a credible medical context, people reported: the presence of light in different forms (tunnels, presences, lighting), externalization from the body and difficulty in assigning a duration and temporal sequence to the event.
But any conclusions will still be based on stories reported by humans. No “controlled” experiment has demonstrated that there is a link between the identity of a dead individual and a measurable, verifiable presence as a spirit in our world.
Other phenomena can take advantage of experiments in controlled conditions, where we can extract similar features to those reported during NDEs. These phenomena are called “paranormal”, or, using better term, “anomalous” (Rao, & Palmer, 1987), and tend to be ignored or denied by “Western hard science”, of course what is paranormal in one era might well be perfectly normal in another, like the radioactivity and X-rays (Horgan, 2012; Durrani, 2000).
We are talking about premonition and remote viewing. Cases of these can be supported by scientifically valid experiments (Targ et al., 2002; Jessica Utts, 1991).
Premonition means accessing information from the future. Remote viewing means perceiving at a distance, far into space and beyond the usual sensing.
Both involve accessing knowledge of space and time not linked to localization in the present and in the current place (Marwaha & May, 2015). With breathing techniques (Trivellato, 2017) and concentration or intake of substances (Sheldrake et al., 2001), some are able to trigger this type of phenomena, including detachment from the body,
The study of the functioning of the brain has seen remarkable developments in recent decades. During states of absence of consciousness, a decrease in activity of the so-called brain default network is usually observed (Raichle, 2015; DiNicola & Buckner, 2019). The default network is the network of connections that is activated when the brain interacts and acquires data from the external environment. It is the system that shows the presence of interaction and analysis of the brain through the senses. When the brain, voluntarily or not, “stops” receiving signals from the outside or processing them, it is unable to place itself at that moment and in that place. In practice, it loses its space-time localization.
The brain default network therefore seems to provide a measure of our state of self-consciousness located in time and space.
Here are the aspects that are "reported" by people who have survived experiences that we can call near-death or through different techniques, remembering that they refer to stories and that experimental verification is not currently possible for any of these:
1. detachment from the body, or a view of space mainly from above.
2. difficulty in assigning duration and temporal sequence to events.
3. presence of light.
Then let's add the salient ones that are acquired in scientifically validated experiments:
4. during states of unconsciousness or deep relaxation, the brain default network reduces its activity as cited in (Lee et al., 2019; Lin et al., 2017). That network is responsible for receiving and analyzing external inputs detected through the senses.
5. premonition and remote vision are phenomena that allow access to non-localized information in space and time. Many of these phenomena occur in unconscious or semi-conscious states (Lehmann et al., 2001).
We should recognize that any information we collect and analyze is filtered by the fact that it is reported by humans, but humans are also the ones who have built physical laws, models and concepts. So, we have a bias when trying to explain the unexplainable, and our vision is not independent of our condition as humans, see also (Bouratinos, 2018). Nothing described by individuals from their own mental experiences can be scientifically verified through external measures, apart from measuring the activity in the brain.
Let us therefore reflect on the stories and extract the aspects that do seem to be independent of the human condition.
Let us start from the detachment from the body or a vision of the place from above. Suppose we are in a condition where space no longer exists, or in a dimension where the whole universe is not described in a set of separate objects but in its overall state. What situation in life comes to mind that can make us imagine losing the ability to distinguish objects? Probably a view from above. On the edge of a cliff, over the top of a mountain, on a plane. When we observe from above, we have the sensation of grasping the entirety of the space and losing that of the detail. We are looking at the whole as if we were external to it. Clearly, to a human, "witnessing" the whole of space suggests a vision from above.
We come to another point: difficulties in assigning duration and temporal sequence to events.
If the first point suggested a condition without a localization in space, this suggests a similar condition but without a localization in time. Failing to arrange memories according to a time-line implies that their description occurred later in a logical way and based on personal, human experience. The same thing applies to the assignment of duration, which in the absence of precise time references is deduced from comparison with events already experienced.
We can deduce that we are dealing with stories that identify a situation where space and time are in any case distorted, and probably absent (Saniga, 2005).
Then we have the presence of light.
Are we sure that it is light as we perceive it? Light as that perceived illuminating books in the dark? The book exists, but does the light exist or is this a concept we use to describe the interaction of our senses with the external material world?
When we hear of visions of angels dressed in white, halos, dark tunnels that lead to a passage towards a reality illuminated by a blinding light at the exit: these are all representations of light that we are used to, assisting both with our senses and through our education. Nobody reports the presence of light as a photoelectric effect or with phenomena other than their own experience. Furthermore, most of the time the perception of light is identified in white or in any case without the distinction of colors. White is the result of all colors emitted simultaneously.
So white light represents the concept of light.
Light is indeed structured within the concept of space and time, according to Einstein's theory. The intrinsic characteristic of the distribution of space and time is the universal constant equal to the speed of light, constant and independent of any reference system. It is an intrinsic feature. We can address a characteristic to the light, or rather its speed, as a number that identifies the presence of all space and all time. The speed of light separates the space-time continuum between whatever has mass and what does not. Whatever can be measured and whatever not, for humans living at speeds lower than that of light, light represents the boundary between a world with defined space and time, filled with localized mass, and “something else”. This something else, however, should not have space and time or massive objects, unless they have different laws from those we know.
One thing seems plausible: the stories of near-death experiences and some paranormal phenomena suggest that they can be framed as the access to a dimension without space and time, and light signals the presence of the boundary towards that dimension (Saniga, 2005; Fenwick et al., 2018; Fenwick, 2019).
In summary, therefore, suppose we are unconscious, and our brain has stopped interacting with the external physical world. Let's suppose that our ego, consciousness or whatever you want to call it, has access to a dimension without space and time, thus being able to grasp all the information of the past, future and wherever they are. When we become conscious again, what would we, as humans, say?
Could we say that we have seen something that we personally have never had anything to do with? Could we say that we have seen or perceived something outside the capabilities of a Human?
No, we would describe something that we can understand and relate to. In other words, we would filter it through a syntax linked to our physical and historical condition. We would report any information as a function of past and human experiences.
So, the reported stories pass through two consecutive filters: 1) consists of the combination of 1a) the sensory/cognitive capacity of human beings as evolved animals in a competitive environment and 1b) the individual cultural/educational background that allows the interpretation of facts. 2) consists of the methodology and cultural contexts that frame any identification and interpretation of facts (Bouratinos, 2018).
This reflection is by no means innovative, but it has to become our lens to investigate the facts.
By adopting a scientific methodology based on verification of facts and measurements acquired by instruments, we cannot assume the reports from humans as evidence for the existence of an “afterlife”. This is definitely true when we deal with NDEs and reincarnation. For other phenomena as premonition and remote viewing, I admit they can be accepted as evidence of “something else”, but there is no direct link with “afterlife”. I do think most of us are therefore influenced by a confirmation bias and we should scout for a possible model that can explain these phenomena bearing in mind self-reflection and openness.
“To Be And Not To Be. This is The Answer: Consciousness Survives,” essay for the 2021 Bigelow essay contest submitted by Dr Peter Fenwick & Dr Pier-Francesco Moretti, Dr Vasileios Basios, and Martin Redfern. The complete essay with footnotes is available at https://bigelowinstitute.org/contest_winners3.php.
No comments:
Post a Comment