I sometimes feel like a pestiferous terrier who goes after someone’s ankles and just won’t stop. There are some issues (among the “Big Questions”) that I repeatedly come back to and just can’t let drop. I suppose that’s because they seem both really important and completely incapable of being figured out. Hence my occasional return to them on the blog.
I’ve mentioned before that I have a daily meditation practice, which does wonders for my stress levels and mental/emotional/psychological well-being, though it does sometimes leave me puzzled.. This morning I did one of those “go deep into your mind” sessions where you just dig deep into your conscience and try to understand who/what you are as a living being.
As often happens when I do that,
Great meditation topic!
The whole thing about ‘life’ could be included.
There seems to be a DNA-type connection that flows across much of life. I wonder how much of what we think and do are ‘pre-programmed’ into our psyche. I know I find myself saying and doing things that my parents and grandparents would have said or done – and that can be cringeworthy at times!! Occasionally there are hints of a memory/familiarity that come from outside my experiences. Those are hard to explain.
How much of “I” is inherited and how much is purely individual? The cell/molecule stuff of our 3D imprinted bodies is all set before we figure out how to use it. The brain functionality is the great mystery. How much of our brain is truly controlled by our ancestors, a divine force, the environment or ourselves?
I vividly remember often lying in bed thinking these kinds of thoughts as a kid, along with trying to get my head around the age and scale of the cosmos. I reckon it’s great to still find such things mind-bogglingly fascinating as an adult.
By the way, extra points for your use of “pestiferous”! 🙂
This might help a bit:
Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will
Robert M. Sapolsky
Penguin Press
2023
ISBN: 9780525560975
Great book
Sapolsky makes some illogical assumptions in his free will book. If you read closely you will notice that he repeatedly assumes he himself has free will. There are other branches of science he also does not consider–epigenetics, for example, quantum physics, and consciousness studies. All of those areas of study impinge on whether or not we have free will. I think free will is a relatively simple phenomenon, and all animals have it, whether simple or complex, and that’s because all animals have consciousness. Consciousness is simply the awareness of self. Even simple beings have an awareness of self, because they need to distinguish between “me,” and “not me” in order to survive. Survival requires being able to make decisions, choosing between a number of options. That’s free will: the ability to choose between options to ensure our ongoing survival. The option we choose will depend on the environment we’re currently in, which has billions of possibilities. Therefore, we can’t possibly be “programmed.” A certain dangerous situation will have multiple possible solutions, and we have to have the ability to calculate between them. Even individual cells in our bodies, which are the descendants of one-celled animals, make decisions.
Sapolsky is something of an embarrassment to the philosophers who debate free will. So, to some extent, is Sam Harris, whom I consider the black sheep of the “New Atheists.” I personally have yet to see a definition of the term that is both plausible and defensible.
Emergence of complexity aka evolution.
I enjoyed reading your thought process. For myself, I like to think more about the physical heart as being central. Heart transplant recipients frequently automatically take on the personality of their donor. Dr. Tom Cowan wrote about the beauty of it in “Human Heart, Cosmic Heart.” To clear my mind I love going to my “power place” out in nature, and while there I look for a way to give back to it. It could be as small as picking up a piece of paper littering the area. Thank you. (I’m in the process of reading several of your books. You’re an extremely interesting author, Professor Ehrman)
There’s lots of scientists who believe we exist outside of the brain. This information can’t be found by studying Neil deGrasse Tyson’s mediocre work or some old, fuddy duddy who hasn’t learned anything new since 1975. Science is a lot like Congress. They’ve been in there since the Declaration of Independence was signed and you can’t get them out of their positions. They’ll die first. Seriously though, following what the science is saying is not a superficial endeavor.
It doesn’t matter what a surgeon or an accident does to alter the sense of “I”. Existing in a physical body has its limitations, and we’re all unique in our perceptions. You may not be able to perceive anything outside of the material world, but I have many times and still do. Think about the colors you see with your eyes. Color isn’t actually real. It’s something our brains make up. Going through this world completely color blind while refusing to acknowledge that others actually see more clearly is unacceptable. It’s time to get with the program already.
Thank you for an insightful and introspective commentary. Advances in Cognitive psychology tells us that we are only aware of around 2% of our mental processes. The rest is on auto pilot. The “I” we are aware of has little to do with our everyday impulses, beliefs and decisions big and small (or fast and slow). These are pretty much predetermined by luck and DNA. It’s all a grand illusion. So much for the Free Will hypothesis.
Read “Incognito” by David Eagleman .And no one in an afterlife will know what to do apart from their time,place ,world and history influences that made them who they are.No one in an afterlife would becthe same person without their total influences And they would cintinually change and become totally different with different memories in centuries.And they won’t want infinite possibilities they don’t care about.God can’t recompense you for deprivations suffered now .You’ll long for what you loved in your life now.So rest in peace
These are questions I think a lot about as well. One thing that really helped me get a handle on it is learning about artificial neural networks. Modeled on the architecture of the brain, neural networks can do a lot of the things that brains do: recognize faces, identify emotions from pictures, complete simple logical operations like an “either/or” statement as well as “fuzzy” abstract ones like sorting pictures of chickens from ducks. Neural networks really made me appreciate the power of emergent properties: systems-level functions that can’t be done by any of the individual parts, but can be done by the network as a whole. For an excellent introduction to neural networks and how they relate to the brain (and to the issues you raise in this post) check out Paul Churchland’s “The Engine of Reason, The Seat of the Soul.” (The title is a little misleading; he doesn’t believe in a non-physical soul)
We exist in our finite minds. We exist in the finite minds of others. We exist in the Infinite Mind that is experiencing everything by being everything.
That doesn’t do much for those of us who see no reason to think that there is any such thing as “Infinite Mind.”
God thinks therefore we are.
And if all that wasn’t enough, we have inside us (and not just the human beings!) the program to actually multiply ourselves by creating another being!
It’s already a miracle that out of the blue we appear into existence, and so it would have been already enough to be stunned by it. But no, we actually have also an extra magic inside us: we can create life without controlling one single yota of that process either.
This is actually one fact of life that when i think about it, all of a sudden the idea of God doesn’t seem crazy at all. Surely the idea of a superior being existing that created all this, is not more crazy than the reality we are made of. To me they are on the same level. If our brain can exist, if a woman can give birth to a child, if the stars in the sky can shine like little diamonds surely God can exist, i dont exclude it.
What have you been smoking? Just kidding!
Maybe I should. Last time it made a lot of things clearer….
Oh, my. I bent my brain on this topic by reading “The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind” 1976 By Princeton psychologist Julian Jaynes. Ouch, it still hurts! That said I think “I” (the conscious me) are some myriad electro biochemical impulses among other myriad-myriad such impulses occurring in my living cerebral cortex. Once that brain stops living, the biochemical impulses from axon to dendrite stop and I will be gone.
Non fui fui non sum non curio.
I think this is, in a way, essentially the question of where consciousness comes from? Or at least that is where my brain goes too the most. Like you said it is crazy how much external things can influence our brain and thus “us”. Heck there are parasites and fungi that cause their hosts to behave as they will them too, haha, how terrifying! And then you can get into epigenetics, and what we inherited from our parents and even grandparents, trauma in particularly it seems but I wonder what else. Our toddler son shows identical facial expressions that his grandfather who passed away did.
I don’t fear death either, although like you mentioned it can be a downer at times. I figure our worst case is we revert to the state we were in before we were born, and nobody remembers that.
Hmmm plenty to meditate on indeed.
I used to meditate regularly when I was a Buddhist. Now I pray daily and nightly as a religiously unaffiliated believer in God.
I hope “we” (spirit or soul or consciousness or whatever) develop “through” the brain over our lifetimes and do exist separately in some plane we aren’t much able to interact with (at least knowingly), at least as long as we’re ‘attached’ to our brains. Maybe the experience of a ‘will’ is that disembodied “us” working on/through the brain we’re connected to.
Maybe damage to parts of the brain don’t actually change “us” so much as what ‘parts’ of us can manifest through the brain. Access to memories or emotions or other functions might be cut off so that the full “us” can’t get through. But once ‘detached’ in something like death, “we” are free to experience reality unburdened by the limitations of the brain.
Maybe the brain is just necessary for the development (growing up/learning) of the ‘real “us”.
But then, where is memory ‘stored’ outside of the brain? Or what happens to the ‘souls’ who don’t ever develop? Many such questions arise.
I have no idea how this would actually work, of course!
I’m just hoping something like this is true because I would love to continue to exist for a very long time!
Have you ever read, “The Believing Brain”, by Michael Shermer? It would answer a lot of your questions.
I don’t think most books that explain it all to their authors explain it all to their readers, if you see what I mean. But I do like Shermer’s work.
Indeed. Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett comes to mind.
Yup, he was brilliant. And sadly missed now.
I have only me to ponder. Much as you just did in your meditation above I meditate on who and what I am. I have practiced Centering Prayer for about 40 years and I have some observations. As my mind quiets down I notice occasional thoughts passing by. They’re like boats on a river in that I watch some of them sailing by but occasionally I board a boat/though and drift away on an adventure. Emotions and sensations are much the same. What becomes clear is that I’m not my thoughts or feelings. Another thing that becomes clear is that this “I” thing is not my body perse since I can lose a limb and “I” is still there. Many years ago “I” had a stroke and lost use of my right side. “I” knew an area of my brain was probably dead or dying even though “I” could not feel or sense it. Yet “I” remained the same. “I” have been outside my body looking down at it. So, “I” am fairly sure the human body “I” occupy is not “I” or even the source of “I”.
We must be kindred spirits because I too think about these things. It’s all very mysterious. I know I differ from your POV in that I tend to think our bodies are somehow channeling a soul. BUT – I must concede that the neurosurgeon’s scapple, psychoactive medications, and TBIs seem to absolutely change who we are (or at least, how we think about things).
I think one relatively recent theory is that consciousness is sort of a beneficial illusion (and along with it, free will). We don’t really will anything according to this theory… Everything is pre-determined and we are just going through the motions. But that seems so counterintuitive to our actual lived experiences.
Consciousness is one of those things that makes me think there’s a God. It’s just too weird to me that all this inanimate stuff comes together to make life (and to evolve it – which is even weirder still!)
Anyhow – first comment. I’m a new subscriber. Love your M.J. Podcast!
Thanks! Glad you like it. It’s fun to do. For me, there are way too many things that are too weird to explain, all the way down to my toaster…..
Another thought is how the atoms in your body (not all but most) are being replaced over time but you are still you. Like the ship of Theseus paradox. Thanks!
Yup! Can’t step or think or be in the same river twice, not even one second to the next…
Besides “Incognito” by David Eagleman. tons of eye opening info…An article by Richard Carrier on the web “Ergo God maximally enjoys getting gangbanged” Humorous title but eye opening in all the human experiences God doesn’t know ..and comments
That’s obviously a great mystery of being you’re referring to, the famous (infamous?) mind-body problem. I’ve recently read (twice) a reasonably short book, “Mind and Cosmos” by Thomas Nagel (one of the greatest living philosophers). He is an atheist but postulates (strongly) that the universe might have a teleological bend and encourages scientists to look into that direction in their research. Highly recommended!
Yup, he’s brilliant. Ever read his essay on what it’s like to be a bat? Fantastic.
Yes, that was undoubtedly his claim to fame—a full, head-on attack against reductionism. I discovered him through his early article “The Absurd” (https://t.co/wUUmlITV5E)—a gentle, philosophical exploration of why we feel a sense that life may be absurd—an interesting attempt for an atheist to fight with nihilism. It’s hard to believe he was just 33 when he wrote it.
When you’re young and intellectual, in a bit you’ll admit you’re a misfit. (Carly Simon!) (Who is the daughter of one of the two founders of the publishing giants Simon&Schuster!) But yes, there are those brilliant folk out there….disabledupes{b22da4349d9956a04549b864395b8907}disabledupes
Richard Hofstadter in I AM A STRANGE LOOP answered the question for me. We have perceptions, we have memory, and we have a feedback loop. We evaluate everything in terms of pain and pleasure. Choose this and you have pain, choose that and you have pleasure with variations in between. Live for years with all this feedback and you have behavior, ego, and identity. Then you die. Someone who has created themselves.
I think you mean Douglas Hofstadter.
The reflection that “only the lifeless atoms that make up me… will go on. But me, yeah, no.” underscores the existential implications of a purely physicalist worldview. However, this conclusion assumes the human being is reducible to their material constituents.
What if the mind isn’t solely a product of brain activity? What if, as substance dualism posits, the mind is a non-physical entity that interacts with the body but is not reducible to it?
Given the current limitations of scientific understanding regarding consciousness, it’s reasonable to consider the possibility that an immaterial mind exists. SD provides a framework that can accommodate this possibility.
If the physicalist perspective fails to provide sufficient answers to fundamental questions and instead leaves one feeling “sad” and devoid of hope, then perhaps it’s time to consider an alternative.
SD presents a plausible worldview that, rather than reducing human existence to mere materiality, offers the possibility of an eternal, immaterial aspect of human consciousness. This perspective has the potential to transform one’s understanding of existence, replacing sadness and despair with hope.
Why cling to a worldview that diminishes human existence when an alternative perspective offers a more expansive and hopeful understanding of what it means to be human?
I’m all for expansive and hopeful understandings! But I’d say that locating meaning outside the human instead of within the human means that meaning does not come from being human, and so by definition is not humanist.
It’s remarkable how ancient thinkers, despite lacking modern scientific knowledge and Enlightenment ideas, still grappled with fundamental human questions. As you know, Paul, for example, rejected the bleak notion that life ends with death (1 Thessalonians 4:13-14), yet refused to adopt a view that separates the mind from the body. For both you and the Apostle Paul, the human experience is inextricably linked with embodiment. Paul’s desire not to be “naked” or disembodied (2 Corinthians 5:3) reflects this intuition. By embracing a view that includes a glorified, resurrected body, we can maintain hope and affirm the intrinsic value of our embodied humanity.
This view is compatible with substance dualism in that it acknowledges the existence of a non-physical aspect of human nature (the soul or spirit), while also emphasizing the importance of embodiment. In this perspective, the resurrected body is not merely a physical shell, but a transformed and glorified embodiment that is reunited with the person’s immaterial soul or spirit. This allows for a holistic understanding of human nature, where both the material and immaterial aspects are integral to our identity and experience.
I have thought virtually the same things over and over for the last decade or so. This mysterious, utterly fascinating boundary between lifeless and living… It reminds me of the boundary between -ostensible, at least- pure randomness and definite reality that marks what physicists call the “The measurement problem” in quantum mechanics: namely, how do we get a single definite reality out of the probabilistic haze encoded in the wave function? Maybe there’s a correlation there?
As far as the “I” issue is concerned, I think it’s entwined with the “free will” problem. I too don’t think there’s actually an “I” to begin with (so, naturally, I also don’t think there’s free will). I think we can safely deduce, from what we have measured/observed, that there are such things as laws of nature, and they evolve in certain ways, and I don’t think it can be showed by anyone that we may intervene in their unfolding. So I think there’s that! 😂
P.S.: I’m reading for the second time “Lost Christianities”. What a beautiful, fascinating, scintillating, amazing book! I’m deeply grateful to the molecules in your brain!
Thanks!! They’ve all been replaced since then, but the new ones really appreciate it!
That gave me a chuckle or two!
I’m reading “No self, No Problem”, by a guy with a PHD in “cognitive neuropsychology”. His main idea so far seems to be our notion of self as a separate being is an illusion created by the left brain. This then is the same as eastern religions have been saying for thousands of years, now backed up by science.
It sounds profound, but I haven’t grasped the ramifications, if “I” doesn’t really exist, then what? If I truly become aware, will I have peace of mind? will I understand who is making decisions?what life is about?
The author is a professor at a university and not on a mountain top meditating, so he is evidently still going through the motions just like the rest of us. But I haven’t finished the book, so if I figure any of this out, I’ll let you know.
Yes, what is consciousness? Are chimpanzees “conscious”? I think that it’s a continuum, where humans are the most conscious of the animals, while toward the other end chickens react spasmodically to stimulus.
Still, the gulf between, say, humans and chimps is vast, exhibited by humans’ ability to communicate complex thoughts and ponder life’s mysteries–such as, what is consciousness!?!
A big question on the horizon is whether AI will achieve “consciousness.” At some point computers may begin exhibiting curiosity or other indications of self-awareness. How will we respond if machine self-awareness is achieved with silicon instead of organic matter?
Maybe we’ll redefine the terms “life” and “consciousness.” Or something else will redefine them.
Dr. Ehrman,
Perhaps in a different life you would have made a great medical ethicist on South Campus!
Irrespective of nature/nurture, this is our life; in the words of Rick and Morty, nobody exists on purpose; nobody belongs anywhere; we’re all gonna die; come watch tv
I’d prefer to read a novel, but I get it!
Great post Bart! I get up early every morning to meditate on being grateful, it’s amazing the list of things to be grateful for. During that meditation I often go into my being, which leads me to the universe, planets, nebulas etc. which takes me to the question of what is nothingness and how did all these things in life get here. I have no answers, but it seems like you can’t get something from absolute nothingness. So I stick to trying to live by the golden rule and we’ll find out in the end. Something or some being must have created all these wonders.
Nature abhors a vacuum. Create a box, pump out 99.5% of the air and what happens spontaneously, matter and anti-matter pop in and out of existence!
After discussions with myself it was decided that we should never be alone with our thoughts
Good one.
The fact of subjective experience is the big mystery. It is a fact, because we can all experience it, and report on it. But nobody understands it. Some think it’s an emergent property of the interaction of billions of neurons in the brain, but nobody has shown how. Some think it’s a fundamental aspect of reality, like mass or electric charge.
I can easily imagine a reality where subjective experience is a stateless singleton that we all share, and that all state – memories, thoughts – live and die with cells in the brain. So in a sense we could be both mortal and immortal – everything that’s unique about us dies, but subjective experience lives on.
You might find this Sunday’s “New York Times” article by Chris Hayes of interest. The title is “I want your attention. I need your attenti0on. Here is how I mastered my own.” He does his “meditation” and gets his best ideas on long walks.
Acts 1:18 is mistranslated from the Ancient Greek
NRSV
(Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his bowels gushed out.
What confused me is, if a person falls headlong, the skull would split open, spilling out the brain.
= = = = =
To write a recent history of the United States, one would put it in context of Fentanyl, Opium, Cocaine, Marijuana/Weed, and Alcohol/Liquor; but, no one in the New Testament seems to be abusing medicinal or recreational drugs.
Someone has studied Ancient Greek well enough to teach it and read ancient manuscripts on pharmacology and mystery religions. He says Acts 1:18 is mistranslated: the way a person can have Judas’ problem is if a drug was was formulated incorrectly or there was an overdose.
Jesus was extremely worried in the Garden of Gethsemane but Judas was also under heavy anxiety for betraying Jesus.
Instead of Judas having a drink to take the edge off, he got a bad batch of drugs or overdosed when trying to psychologically deal with what happened.
The English of the NRSV of that verse can be improved that way or another way?
Falling headlong means falling forward as opposed to backward. It doesn’t mean the head is the first thing to hit the ground. (the word hea doesn’t occur; GENOMENOS PRENES)
People fall face down all the time and their intestines and bowels do not come out of their body.
Football plays get tackled and fall face down all the time and their intestines and bowels do not come out of their body.
Your response does not explain how accurate it was for Judas to die as in Acts 1:18.
So, that leaves you with Matthew 27: 3-10, Judas hanged himself?
I”m nmot sure that if you think Acts gets it wrong that automatically means that Matthew is right.
How do you think Judas died? Did he fall in the field he bought or did he hang himself or how do you think Judas died?
I don’t think those are our only two options, and I don’t think we know.
Well, if it makes you feel any better, the atoms in your body are billions of years old. Your atoms have been circulating on Earth for a very long time, through the air, water, crust, and living things. There may be atoms in your body that were once part of a volcano, or a T. rex, or Jesus, for that matter.
The scientific definition of a living organism is something that consumes energy, grows, reproduces, AND the population of that organism must be capable of evolving (note that populations evolve, not individuals). Cognition isn’t a prerequisite. Consciousness is considered an emergent property of cognitive complexity though the mechanisms are still much debated.
Thank you. Yes, there are a number of philosophers who study consciousness who think that “brains” are not necessary for consciousness, or at least not in the sense we think of a brain. We now have scientists studying the consciousness of trees and plants (the International Laboratory for Plant Neurobiology), and even those who think one and two-celled creatures have consciousness. In order for any living thing to survive, it has to have self-awareness, so since not everything has a “brain,” then brains must not be solely responsible for consciousness. We already know that mood is determined by the neurotransmitters in our guts, so even for humans the brain does not control the sum total of “I.”
However what we think of as “ourselves” emerges, I believe there is a primordial, eternal sea of consciousness from which we all derive. Admittedly, this is just a feeling, but I believe that ultimately nothing really exists except consciousness. How a material world emerges from this (what breathes fire into the equations, as Stephen Hawking put it) is a mystery. Perhaps the bigger question is where do the laws of physics come from that allow anything to exist?
The Big Bang!
Yes, though many physicists are now proposing other universe-generating scenarios (i.e. Paul Steinhardt, Lee Smolin, and others). These scenarios obviously assume that something existed prior to our local big bang, most especially the quantum laws that enabled these universe-generating mechanisms to exist and operate. Ultimately, you need to confront the question of where these laws came from, and why these particular laws. I would recommend a book by Laura Mersini-Houghton – Before the Big Bang: The Origin of Our Universe from the Multiverse. (She in fact is a professor of theoretical physics and cosmology at UNC Chapel Hill).
Sounds interesting. If she thinks our univese came from the multiverse (I have no problem with that!) then I wonder if she explains then where the multiverse came from. In any event, I should think that even if there is a multiverse, in this unierse the laws of physics were determined at the big bang. Does she say something different?
She is indeed a proponent of the multiverse, and even thinks there is a way to test this idea (which she elucidates in her book). She envisions our own universe as emerging from a “phase space” of quantum possibilities on a higher dimensional mathematical “landscape”. Each “point” on this landscape represents the probability of a particular “baby” universe emerging or “budding” out of this phase space. This relies on a process of eternal inflation with obviously no beginning and no end. In any case, none of this operates without the quantum laws existing a priori. Thus my contention that the laws of quantum mechanics must exist eternally and “outside” of any particular universe.
And every universe has the same laws? Interesting. I wonder how that goes down with her fellow physcists as a rule. I do wonder, though, what it means to “test” the idea. I better read the book!
As I understand it, universes are “born” depending on where something called the “inflaton field” lands on the landscape of quantum probabilities. Think of the inflaton as a marble rolling down a hill. It usually comes to rest at its point of least resistance (least potential energy). The fact that the shape of this mathematical landscape is governed by quantum laws doesn’t mean that all universes generated from it necessarily have the same laws of physics. Each universe will have its own laws that operate internally to it.
The multiverse isn’t science. There are many versions of cosmic inflation and many of them are non-eternal (for example, if there is a waterfall field along with the inflaton). A better critique of the multiverse can be found on Sabine Hossenfelder’s website and videos. The many different types of multiverses don’t really have a good basis, and many scientists criticize the whole idea since it is based on so-called anthropic principles (which aren’t even science). In my opinion, don’t waste your time on Laura Mersini-Houghton’s claims that black holes don’t exist and quantum entanglement with other universes proves a multiverse exists. Both of those claims have been falsified by observations:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2015/03/completely-implausible-a-controversial-paper-exists-but-so-do-black-holes/
https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2016/06/new-study-finds-no-sign-of-entanglement.html
Sabine Hossenfelder is a notorious naysayer of just about anything unless it follows the strictures of logical positivism. Black holes obviously exist in *our* universe, and Mersini-Houghton would be the first to admit this, but no one knows what they fundamentally are, even whether the singularity actually exists. At this scale, we can no longer say anything using our current physics. My own guess is that black holes may themselves be a universe-generating mechanism (Lee Smolin). Quantum entanglement is a proven phenomenon that forces us to accept that our universe is fundamentally non-local (Bell’s theorem). At the very least, this indicates that our understanding of space-time is incomplete. Also, if you discount anthropic reasoning, you are left with accepting our universe as simply a brute fact, and all further speculation ends there.
I’m not sure there has been a week or more since like age 12 to now age 50, that I haven’t had these same levels of existential thoughts about consciousness and existence and meaning. I love life and I love watching the world and I love people (at least some of them!) and I love my thoughts and I love thinking about thinking, life, and existence… so, my fear of death is more about the sadness, that at some point, I don’t get to love those things anymore. So, the argument that one shouldn’t fear death because at some point you didn’t exist and didn’t feel anything, and at death, you’ll also simply not exist anymore and not feel anything… that doesn’t make me feel better in the here and now. I don’t want to NOT exist. So, I do fear death… I like living.
On my part I’m sad about death (not being alive anymore), but I’m not afraid of it (since I don’t think I’ll be suffering in any way, mentally or physically, or even know that I’m dead)
I apparently was born with the character trait of neuroticism, meaning negative moods predominate. I too love thinking — along with reading it is my favorite thing. But death does not make me sad — I have enough sorrow knowing about the coming fate of the earth & its inhabitants. At least when I am dead I won’t have to learn daily of the grief & sorrow taking place here.
The only thing I’m sad about is that I will never know the answers to all of our questions. But I won’t be aware that I don’t know, so it won’t bother me!
But, I also don’t want to exist in pain and suffering either… so, not sure how it all squares if my own pain/suffering is ever too much. But for now, I am very PRO existence. And very much ANTI-pain/suffering for anyone and everyone. But pain seems to be that one thing that signals to me that there is something more there… that maybe there is a “me”? That I am alive.
With that said, what is that thing that feels the pain? I understand the physical elements… from the nerves to the brain… but that doesn’t explain to me, that once that signal is there… what is that ephemeral pain feeling? what is feeling it, if not me? what is pain? I’m not necessarily advocating for a soul… and I guess there is an argument that it is all some emergent property that creates my consciousness and allows me to feel pain…. but it is all so mysterious… like the brain is poking some aspect of the quantum fabric of time and space that is my consciousness just to say “feel this!”.
For me the quest should not be focused on the things we observe or experience (observed) in our minds, but rather turn the quest for “observer” or the witness(es), plural if one split the concious and uncouncious mind, which also correspond to many of the old Upanishads, especially those tied to the ancient Vedic traditions (spread from 400-1000 BCE), those who deeply focus on this idea of the Self.
Interesting thoughts Dr. Ehrman. Pstrst’s post about atoms reminded me of the fact that in every breath we take, we are breathing in some atoms that Jesus himself actually breathed (or anybody else that has lived). The Buddha taught that there is no “I” and Descartes taught that the existence of the “I” is the one thing that is absolutely certain. The mysteries of consciousness haven’t been solved, even these old ones. I’ve sort of stopped thinking about the hard problem (why and how brain cells exchanging electrical impulses could have an associated conscious awareness), the qualia problems (how electrical patterns in the brain can have associated sensations like color etc.) and the binding problem (how is conscious experience bound up into a unity). These problems are too difficult even for modern science. Maybe quantum physics can help with the binding problems. I think there has to be something more to consciousness than modern understanding knows about, but what that something is nobody knows. Carl Sagan said that “we” are the cosmos observing itself. I’m not sure how satisfactory Sagan’s answer is. Life is not stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine.
A friend of mine had a rather interesting father, a vivacious and tempestuous man who wasn’t preoccupied with the problem of his own consciousness nor, apparently, concerned about death. During his final illness in hospital he would take out a hand mirror and look at his reflection. His daughter asked him why he was doing that. He replied, ‘Just checking I’m still here.’
Some scholars believe free will doesn’t exist (Sapolsky). Genetic endowment, previous experiences, and current environment plays major roles in our choices, decisions. Your genetics, family of origin, and obviously love are paramount.
If we can determine other life exists in the universe. I would love to be around when this is announced. What would the Evangelical community think of other civilizations that are not human?
Ron
I’m afraid I have a good idea what most of our most powerful countries/governments would want to do….
The Division of Perceptual Studies in the University of Virginia School of Medicine has been researching matters paranormal, including near death experiences, for over 50 years. The researchers are serious professionals who follow the scientific method rigorously. They have investigated and documented numerous NDE events which simply cannot be explained as resulting from physical brain function. Rather, they appear to indicate the possibility that the mind/consciousness might exist apart from the physical brain. As serious scientists the researchers have not yet drawn conclusions to explain these events. But the data they’ve collected, and the events they’ve documented are compelling. So, I can’t help but wonder; maybe “I” DO exist.
I think maybe we are a loci of influences, and our emotions tell us if our current focus is putting us closer or farther away from our deeper, timeless self.
Initially, on incarnating you may be diving into a pool and not feeling your lightest self.
I think it’s possible that the Bible is a record from the first writings of civilization with humanity’s deified kings (Sumerian myths) to the last deified king, Jesus. What is more fantastical is I think it is possible that this sudden technological golden age occured that keeps rolling since Sumeria is because a very small group of entities chose to enter the Simulation because it is no one’s intention to keep it a secret, it’s just that materiality is dense and focused.
Those beings need to have extraordinary proofs, like revealing a unique understanding of historical events without any or little education in those events. And I think our natural state is joy.
Hi Bart,
I think you have highlighted the 2nd law of thermodynamics in one of your debates. I don’t recall that debate but I think you used this demonstration in an argument related to the resurrection of Jesus.
However, I do recall that you have used the following example (or something similar): If you added milk-powder to the cup of coffee then the powder will mix with the coffee to the point that the powder cannot be purely extracted from the mix by natural process [which means that it can only be extracted by external work, which is the philosophical doctrine of the 2nd law].
In more detailed description: a closed-system cannot go from a higher level of chaos (i.e. higher level of entropy) to a lower level of chaos without external work. Best example is the refrigerator: you cannot reduce the entropy inside the refrigerator (which can be regarded as a semi closed-system) without doing an external work (from outside this closed-system).
However, in this post, you were describing the brain with its 80-100 billion neurons. This brain is probably the most organized entity that we know of inside this universe.
————->
————>
But this universe (which is regarded as a closed-system) went from its most chaotic level at the big-bang, then reached a level of a very high organized entity (the brain) that is able to create so many other organized entities.
This is weird, isn’t it!
Some argue that although the brain is highly organized, but the universe as a whole is in a high chaos state, and this increases the “general entropy” for the whole universe.
But I have no issue against this argument; because it is not the point! The universe this year has higher entropy than last year. But the entropy of this year (and the years after) is much lower than the entropy at the big-bang event. So, there has been a point (or many points in time) that the universe went from a high level of entropy to a lower one …. and then this entropy started to rise again.
As with your demonstrated example for the 2nd law, this reduction of entropy cannot be accomplished without an external work, exactly the same as the powder cannot be extracted from the cup of coffee without external work.
Waiting on the post describing your inevitable psilocybin trip! Great stuff, sir!
During my final years as a Christian, I thought about this a lot. The idea I relied on to reconcile a belief in an afterlife with an understanding of the brain-chemistry-dependent illusion comprising my sense of a “self” came from Richard Rohr, who said, “If we know anything about heaven, we know there’s not a lot of ‘you’ there.” His idea of a “soul” doesn’t jibe with the Evangelical concept of you—generally, a version of you in your prime—hanging out in heaven with your dead family members; he views it as something less specific than the thing you and your acquaintances recognize as your personality, i.e. the part that can be eternalized. Now, as a post-Christian, I can still allow for the possibility that everything I think of as “me” switches off like a light bulb, but that there may or may not be some sort of animating life-essence that goes back into the pot, so to speak, assuming some sort of force infusing and connecting everything. I have no evidence of this, so I don’t “believe” it, but I also know how little we perceive and understand about reality, so I’m at least leaving the door open. . .
Here is a fun thought experiment on this topic:
Consider the modal property of being “imaginably transfigurable” – the ability to be conceived of as undergoing a radical transformation, such as being transformed into a dog. I possess this property, as I can imagine myself as a canine.
However, my body does not possess this property. If my body were to be transformed into a dog, it would cease to be my body. The very notion of my body being transformed into a dog is incoherent, as it would entail a fundamental change in its physical structure and composition.
This disparity reveals a deep and essential distinction between my personal identity and my bodily identity. The property of being imaginably transfigurable applies to my mind/self, but not to my body.
By the law of identity of indiscernibles, if my body and mind were identical, any property true of one would be true of the other. Since this is not the case, and given the essential and modal differences between my body and mind, it follows that my body and mind are non-identical, and that I am a non-physical entity – a mind or soul – that is distinct from my physical body.
Haven’t read all the comments, so not sure I am being repetitive, or unique but here is my thoughts. I believe the purpose of this life is to experience this life, nothing more or less. I see us all as like a book. We have a beginning, an end and many chapters in between telling, experiencing our story.
Is there an infinite library that all life experiences are stored in once our stories have been written and come to an end? If so then I would see that library as the mind of god, or source of all existence. The purpose of it all is the life experience.
I believe consciousness is possibly the only infinite existence there is. That would make all consciousness past present and future collectively, god. All life experiences the experience of god, or source. To me that would explain why some reincarnation experiences occur for some you hear about. We and every life experience are connected and is why sometimes memories of past life experiences occur for some but not all.
In short, we are god, and our life experience is an experience of god!
The mind is the brain. When the brain dies, the mind dies.
I have too much ADHD to meditate, but I think about this kind of stuff all the time. No, really: this is my version of “I think about the Roman Empire every day.” I’m somewhat comfortable with the fact that my consciousness is the result of millions of years of trial and error evolution of my metazoan ancestors, which means it’s way to complex and jerry-rigged to ultimately figure out. But kudos to those who make the attempt. I’ve mentioned it before, but I recommend looking up “Generic Subjective Continuity,” if you haven’t already. Maybe followed by a meditation session :-). See also Tom Clark. GSC is an unfalsifiable and untestable concept but seems perfectly plausible. Sounds reincarnation adjacent, but no soul transfer involved, no moral progress, nor moving up through layers of enlightenment. Simply put: when one self aware conscious process ends it is immediately followed by another self aware conscious process producing an illusion of transmigration. No memory connection between the two. Your comment about brain changes via “the knife” or “defensive tackle” hits is pointing in a GSC direction. Tom Clark uses similar analogies. https://www.naturalism.org/philosophy/death/death-nothingness-and-subjectivity
These are really big questions, and I don’t have answers.
But do you have a specific method or routine for your meditations?
I’m very eclectic, sometimes focusing on my bodily sensations, or my breathing, or my internal organs, or my mind, or the void , or the difficulties I’m having in life, or my resolutions of how to live or …… Usually a combination of things
The Preacher in Ecclesiastes 9 says it well:
Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for God has already approved what you do. 8 Always be clothed in white, and always anoint your head with oil. 9 Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun—all your meaningless days. For this is your lot in life and in your toilsome labor under the sun. 10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might,
You can quickly get bogged down with metaphorical questions here, but consider what happens with an Alzheimer’s patient where the brain slowly disintegrates and you lose your memories, your ability to do the simplest tasks, and eventually your ability to recognize even your own spouse. Eventually, a kind of living death. Without the brain, there is no consciousness. Period.
One way that we can envision a linkage between the inanimate elements you mentioned and the experience a “me” is the concept of emergent properties. A listing of emergent relationships might be something like this:
• Matter is an emergent property of the constants associated with the interactions at the subatomic level, plus gravity.
• At a general level, atoms are an emergent property of interactions between protons, neutrons, and electrons.
• The different elements are an emergent property of the interactions between protons, neutrons, and electrons, combining in different quantities.
• Molecules are an emergent property of the interactions between atomic elements.
• Chemistry is / deals with the interactions of molecules and atoms
• Life is an emergent process resulting from the interactions between chemicals, molecules, elements, and atoms.
• Brains are an emergent property of life, as a means of enhancing the ability of the associated organisms to survive in their environment.
• Intelligence/mind/consciousness is an emergent property associated with and dependent on the chemical processes exhibited by the associated brains.
• A personal identity is the emergent property of an intelligence/mind/consciousness that is linked to a particular brain/body.
But still a heady problem to ponder.
Thanks. I have no trouble understanding that there is a sequence of emergent proesses. I have a problem understanding how consciousness fits the sequence; it seems to be a different order of things. (Life is a problem too, but not as big of one I should think.)
Hey Dr. E,
Long time listener/viewer, first-time reader here. I love your work.
I practice transcendental meditation daily. As it happens, I’m also reading “Consciousness is All There Is” by Dr. Tony Nader, who is a neurologist as well as president of the TM organization. I’m a big fan of the late, great David Lynch, who probably had the most influence on me learning TM. So you could say I have a bias.
As the title suggests, Dr. Nader advances the idea that consciousness is the “unified field” beneath/beyond/before all of existence, when the world was without form, and that all of creation is sort of an infinitely complex consciousness simulation. It is more nuanced than that, but I know it’s similar to what some other cutting edge theoretical physicists are suggesting, as evidenced by some of the other comments here. What are your thoughts on this?
Side note: the TM technique seems to be very similar to Fr. Thomas Keating’s “Centering Prayer.” Different cultural descendants of a shared mystic, gnosis-based vision of the universe, perhaps.
I guess I would have no idea of how to evaluate the idea, or any reason to think it’s right (or wrong!).
Consciousness and the self (the I), are distinct concepts, and realities. This said, as a trained mathematician I was educated within the current dominant paradigm of physicality. It’s first assumption is that matter is the fundamental unit of reality.
For centuries, philosophers have argued otherwise. First one I came across was Schopenhauer. With the difficulties of present day science to explain some very basic observations, like the hard problem of consciousness, and the non-locality of particles (entanglement), many are questioning the current paradigm espoused by science and thus our modern occidental world and considering other paradigms, mainly idealism. That’s where I’m now at. It better explains our world.
Cheers
I used to be a materialist. Where my brain is just a wet mess of atoms, quarks, electrons, etc
Then I dove into a black hole. As I understand current physics, black holes are required (by quantum information theory) to encode the information that fell in onto the event horizon
So now I’m an info-materialist. When I think of Plato’s Form of a triangle, there are chemical/electrical/quantum states that make up the idea of the triangle
Think too intensely about a Form and step in front of a bus and it’s the loss* of information that causes death of the self
*IIRC, information can’t be destroyed, but it can be scrambled up enough that retrieval is a practical impossibility
Mind
Soul
Consciousness
The eternal discussion ….
Try practicing Remote Viewing … the paradigm shift is amazing.
There are two quotes from Babylon 5 that pretty much sum up my spirituality:
“You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn’t it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe.”
Marcus Cole to Franklin, A Late Delivery from Avalon
[G’Kar lets an ant walk off his hand and on to a flower]
“That ant meets another ant and asks, what was that?…There are things in the Universe billions of years older than either of our races. They are vast, timeless, and if they are aware of us at all, it is as little more than ants and we have as much chance of communicating with them as an ant has with us. We know. We’ve tried and we’ve learned that we can either stay out from underfoot or be stepped on. They are a mystery and I am both terrified and reassured to know that there are still wonders in the Universe, that we have not explained everything.”
Ambassador G’Kar to Miss. Sakai, Mind War
“That’s not a scary thought for me, just very sad.” – Exactly me; and I have two things that have helped my sadness: I used to kayak down rivers and hated the end of the trips. I wanted them to last forever. Then I thought, If one actually did last forever it would turn into a nightmare. Trips MUST end, they’re so special BECAUSE they’re finite. Concentrate on enjoying each minute. Secondly, I live in a forest on the SE African coast and there are always huge trees dying, falling over, rotting away and being replaced naturally. There are 8 Billion of us humans on Earth and people died to make way for me. Thank you good people! I have to die in turn to make way for the next lot. It’s estimated 100 billion humans have lived so far, so the place would be horribly crowded if they hadn’t shuffled off. So I too have to shuffle off when its my turn. We’re all different, but those thoughts over the last couple decades have helped me with the sadness aspect.