Webdiary - Independent, Ethical, Accountable and Transparent
header_02 home about login header_06
header_07
search_bar_left
date_box_left
date_box_right.jpg
search_bar_right
sidebar-top content-top

Creation and the Origin of Life

Christian de Duve, a Nobel laureate in Medicine, is the author most recently of Singularities.

by Christian de Duve

According to modern science’s version of Genesis - less colourful than the biblical story, but no less wonderful - Earth was born, together with the Sun and the other planets, in a whirlwind of gas and dust, some 4.5 billion years ago, a little more than nine billion years after the Big Bang. A half-billion years later, our planet had recovered sufficiently from the pangs of its violent birth to become physically capable of harbouring life. After less than another half-billion years, it did indeed harbour life, in particular an entity, called the last universal common ancestor (LUCA), that gave rise through evolution to all known living creatures, including microbes of various kinds, plants, fungi, animals, and humans.

Primitive organisms arose from nonliving matter in what were probably hot, sulphurous, metal-laden, volcanic waters. This unsavoury brew was likely "spiced" with abundant small organic molecules such as amino acids, sugars, nitrogenous bases, and other typical components of biological constituents. One of the most astonishing discoveries of the last decades, revealed by exploration of space, nearby celestial objects, and especially meteorites that fell to Earth, is that many of the chemical building blocks of life form spontaneously throughout the universe. Organic chemistry, so named because it was believed to be a prerogative of living organisms, has turned out to be the most widespread and banal chemistry: the chemistry of carbon.

How this "cosmic chemistry" gave rise to the first living cells is not known in detail, but the process may be summed up in two words. The first is chemistry, the essence of life. Living beings continually manufacture their own constituents from small inorganic and organic building blocks, with the help of catalysts called enzymes and of energy derived from sunlight, mineral sources, or foodstuffs made by other organisms. Something similar happened in the origin of life, but along pathways, by the action of catalysts, and with sources of energy that remain to be identified.

Enormous research efforts have already been devoted to this problem. Much has been learned, but no solution is in sight. All that can be said is that the processes involved must, being chemical, have been highly deterministic and reproducible, that is, bound to occur under prevailing conditions. If chemistry admitted even a small element of chance, there could be no chemical laboratories, no chemical factories.

The second key word is replicability, the ability of certain information-bearing molecules to induce the making of (complementary) copies of themselves by the machineries responsible for the synthesis of their kind. This function, fulfilled mostly by DNA today, was probably first carried out by RNA, a close relative of DNA.

In the beginning, replication concerned only RNA molecules. Soon, RNA molecules became involved in the synthesis of proteins according to RNA-supplied blueprints, so that replication extended to proteins, by way of RNA (eventually DNA). In turn, replication came to affect, by way of proteins, increasingly complex objects, up to cells and multi-cellular organisms.

Replication allowed the endless reproduction of the same entities, generation after generation, which is the basis of genetic continuity. Furthermore, because of the inevitable failures in the fidelity of the process, replication necessarily led also to variation (in replicable form), hence to competition among variant lineages for available resources. The necessary outcome, as first divined by Charles Darwin, was the selection of those lineages most apt to survive and , especially , produce progeny under existing conditions. This process became added to chemistry as soon as replicability appeared, operating first on molecules and, subsequently, on increasingly complex assemblages, until the present day.

With replication, chance made its appearance, by way of the variations, or mutations, that were offered to the screening action of natural selection. According to all we know, these variations are strictly accidental, totally devoid of any intentionality or foresight – hence the widespread notion that the history of life was ruled by contingency.

But this view ignores the possibility that the array of choices offered by chance to natural selection may be sufficiently extensive to allow an optimal or near-optimal solution to emerge, in which case the process is actually close to obligatory and reproducible under the prevailing conditions.

Indeed, there are strong reasons to believe that optimizing selection may have occurred in the origin and evolution of life more often than is generally assumed. This implies that life, to the extent that it is the product of deterministic chemistry and of optimizing selection, is likely to arise, in a form similar to life as we know it, wherever conditions mimic those that surrounded its birth on Earth, thus justifying today’s interest in extraterrestrial life.

But this optimizing selection during evolution is nothing like proof of intelligent design. Irrespective of the arguments put forward in support of ID, which have been abundantly refuted, let it simply be stated that a theory based on an a priori declaration that things are not naturally explainable is not a scientific theory. By definition, the science is based on the idea that the object of study is naturally explainable. Why look for an explanation otherwise? What is truly wonderful is how much of nature, including the fundamental features of life, has already proven to be explainable.

Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2006.
www.project-syndicate.org

left
right
spacer

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Mike: Not everyone has

Mike:  Not everyone has an NDE. Kerry Packer was one of them. the research shows that there is a small number or people who report frightening experiences which may well be NDE's but as has been said before, more research is needed.

The overwhelming evidence for those who have NDE's is that there is a consistencyof experience, regardless of religion or culture, and that people have an ongoing peace of mind ..... they lose any fear of death. They also have a strong belief in God but not in religion and believe that the only thing which matters is how well we live our lives as a caring and loving human being.

 

Closer to the mystical

Jenny: No, I don't think it matters if we don't completely understand everything. I am not sure we ever will, at least not in our human form as it exists today.

Interestingly the development of quantum physics has taken scientists, or rather physicists, closer to the mystical and esoteric than any other scientific discipline. Explanations, now accepted by physicists can be found in similar form in the ancient Indian teachings.

As I said, scientists often do not have the knowledge or the equipment to research some things properly and that includes NDE's. Given the negativity science displays toward such things, research is hampered all the more. But it does go on.

Yes, I agree with you, very strange things do happen and not just around the dying or the dead which give credence to the psychic abilities of human beings and suggests there are powers and abilities which are far beyond our understanding at this point and which indicate that consciousness can exist without brain function.

I don't think anyone can say there is absolute evidence for life beyond death but I do believe in keeping an open mind. So far, I have to say, the evidence from what I have read, observed and experienced, combined with common sense, because ultimately it has to make sense, pushes me toward believing that it is however likely.

 What I find tedious is the dismissive approach taken by people who seem to feel that there is something 'sacred' about the scientific approach and who refuse to consider the possibility of anything without it passing the 'laboratory test.'

The reality is that we frail and flawed human beings would not have gotten very far indeed if we had insisted upon such a limited view of phenomena.

I think science will be of use with these phenomena and physics is leading the way, but it will require an opening of minds that is likely to take time. Science, like any academic medium, limits itself by prejudice, arrogance and ego ..... only brave scientists will challenge the accepted view and risk their careers in the doing. Darwin in his time was of course utterly ridiculed and now he is venerated ..... much more than he deserves in my view, but there you go.

Life is a mystery, this world is magical and some of the most precious things in life cannot be reduced to theorem, nor be reproduced at will. But we believe in them all the same.

Roger: You are clearly in a tizz about nothing. Your comments came across as snide. I said that. If you want to have a hissyfit because you think it was personal then go for it. Nothing on this site is personal. We do not know each other. People clearly pick up inferences and flavours from what is written but it ain’t personal. It cannot be. You may call me anything you like. It happens frequently around Webdiary but I do not take it personally. I recommend that you do not either. In the scheme of life you are in a froth about nothing.

I included the link because it gave some background, minimal yes, but some background to the subject in case you were interested. Links are of course optional. Everything you write, everything I write is an effort to substantiate the position we have taken. That is what this site is about. I am not sure what you think it is about if you think that substantiating a position is somehow strange.

And, just because you have found no reports of NDE's existing prior to the 70's that does not mean they did not exist. It just means you have not read enough.

You said: I am not going to labour the point but there is as much scientific literature on NDE and its likely causes as you have time to devote to read it. It's not hard to find and it is written by people who have no vested interest in maintaining NDE as a fact.

No, it is written by people who are curious, as am I. I have already stated I do not have a fixed opinion but remain open to the causes of NDE's. NDE's do exist and they are a fact. There is no denying that. What is in question is what causes them and as I said in a previous post, I remain open as to the answers in that regard. You appear to remain closed.

You said: You appear to fault me for my scepticism.

It is not your scepticism but your closed mind on the issue. In fact there really is not much point talking about it since you have made up your mind that NDE's cannot reveal a capacity for consciousness beyond brain function. In addition you belittle scientists who admit to a mystical interest .... that is not scepticism, that my friend is prejudice.

You said: There is no proof that NDE is a mystical experience or a disconnection of brain and consciousness, only speculation.

There is no proof that NDE is NOT a mystical experience or a sign that consciousness can exist without brain function. There is no proof that it is caused by drugs, or that it is an 'automatic' reaction by the traumatised or dying body.

At this point in time there is no clear proof of anything. There are however, indications that NDE's may well reveal a capacity for consciousness beyond brain function and clear suggestions that the brain is far more complex and powerful than we have previously believed.

Is this evidence of life beyond death? No. Is it evidence that we have a great deal more to learn about the brain and how it functions? Yes.

You said: There is however overwhelming proof that laws such as Einstein’s laws of general and special relativity are real. If they were not, our mobile phones would not work. Think about it next time you use it.

There is also overwhelming proof that physicists are now questioning some of Einstein's laws. The great man, it seems, got some things right but not all things right. As is usually the way. You might think about that.

Not in a tizz

Roslyn, I am not in a tizz/hissyfit (strange choice of words); however, I am sorely disappointed in your attitude. You cannot just bandy words about to suit your own meaning. I pointed out clearly to you that 'snide' is not a word with any flippant connotations. Do I need to repeat the definitions or are you just going to blow the meanings off because they don't suit your own poorly understood and selective sense of what the word means?

Back to the main point of difference between us, NDE's. I realise that I have been, at times, imprecise in my use of the term. I have no issue with the fact that people have reported an experience while undergoing the early stages of a life-ending or loss of consciousness episode. I don't doubt that people "see" bright lights and have other artefacts such as out-of-body sensations. I accept the bona fides of the person making those claims.

My main point of disputation, as I stated so very clearly in my first comment on this matter, is with placing mystical connotations on that experience and in following up, particularly that these reports are "proof" of a separate existence of consciousness. As to some of my other comments, I stated very clearly that the "reporting" of NDE with the popular media follows the same path as the "reporting" of alien abduction. I believe that what I stated is factual, as any search that you want to conduct of popular and scientific literature archives will show.

You have made a whole lot of other mistaken inferences about what I "said" or what I "meant". That, Roslyn, does you no credit; neither for your skill at reading and comprehending what I wrote nor for your misguided attempts at flippant denigration.

You just can't seem to help yourself in that department. I have "belittled" no scientist. My comments are factual. Hopefully there is not a single professional who practices the scientific method who would "belittle" scepticism. It seems that you have a poor understanding of what constitutes scientific research. Making the rather foolish claim that there is "no proof that NDE is NOT a mystical experience" is no different than asking a man who has never beaten his wife whether has now in fact stopped beating her. You cannot prove or disprove this negative because the premise is false to start with. You seem to be fumbling about for any argument that will save you a little face.

And in keeping with the general tenor of most of what you have written you finish with this: "There is also overwhelming proof that physicists are now questioning some of Einstein's laws". What has "overwhelming proof" got to do with what is de rigueur in the world of physics and cosmology and science in general? Einstein was not a supreme being. His great intuition was built upon the work of other scientists, among them the great Henri Poincaré. This and future generations will build on Einstein's work. It has nothing to do with the mystical and everything to do with the real.

And irrespective of what other scientists ultimately add or remove about the laws of relativity, our mobile phones work because Einstein's postulate on the interaction of time and matter in motion is accurate to the level that makes synchronous satellite orbits possible and therefore makes GPS and mobile phone networks possible. The physics of that other scientific giant, Newton, could not support such an endeavour, Einstein's physics did. This is the real world of science, Ros. What point were you trying to make?

When we can prove that NDE's have other facets amenable to the scientific method we will actually know something real. Until then, it is merely speculation.

why didn't Kerry Packer have an NDE?

Kerry Packer died for 20 minutes and then was revived. His comment about this was: there is no hell, there is no heaven. There is simply nothing. So why didn't he have an NDE?

Roger, I never said I thought consciousness was "more wonderful" than the mechanics of visual processing, just more mysterious.

No airs and graces

Jenny, I think that you present a very balanced and fair view. I have enjoyed reading your opinions.

(Even if me boots are a bit muddy!)

No airs and graces with you. What you see is what you get.

And I sincerely hope that the heavens rain down on you real soon. God knows we need the rain over here in WA too.

Kathy! Your boots are muddy!

Kathy Farrelly: Anyone with muddy boots these days would be a rare and welcome visitor in my life. Do you know I saw yesterday the redbacks have taken up residence in the old raincoat. Hopefully one day one will have cause to evict them.

Nice to touch base after our little episode back there. But we gave the folks on Club Chaos some fun, did we not? Of course the matter that sparked it all was very sad.

Yes, I see WA is in just as bad a way as we are over here in the East and I see the once mighty Hume weir has fallen from 18% to 14% in the past fortnight - I suppose due to releases. Adelaide must be feeling rather nervous at this point.

Thanks for the honest opinion. I am many things, but cold-blooded is not one of them. Mind you, I did threaten a debt collector with a loaded gun at the age of ten. Maybe I should have done the deed, as not long after we were all out on the road. I can relate to life's dispossessed, like the woman under the bridge on our farm (now nicely set up in new digs with TV and all!) and it happens all too often to farm families. Bank manager near here tells of 30 phone calls just this week from farmers saying: There will be no crop, and now no income. When are you coming to throw us off? Awful for the kids. You never forget the experience. I read this week that ten conglomerates now own 23% of the agricultural holdings in this country. Is that what we really want?

Geoff: I would have to think about it. Not a time in my life I like to revisit too often. But since that time I never dismiss out of hand those who report weird experiences and phenomena. Cheers for the moment anyway.

Muddy Boots

As you know, I always keep my boots on when I come into this place. Mud and all. It's not bad manners. It's just that there are more redbacks and snakes inside here than outside in the paddocks.

Now Geoff, steady on there. No venom please.

Now, Geoff, steady on there. Metaphorically speaking, if you turn over a log in most paddocks you will sure as not find the odd snake or redback. And most snakes are pretty harmless anyway. And who’s afraid of a flaming spider? There's one running all over my screen right now. They all like cemeteries too, so one day they will likely be crawling all over us anyway.

one more simple question

One more simple question for those who believe that consciousness survives death:

If consciousness can be eliminated by a partial reduction of higher brain activity - as in general anesthesia, or even a little too much booze - how could it possibly survive 100% reduction of brain activity (ie, death)? Doesn't make sense.

I recall the last time I had surgery requiring general anesthesia. The anesthetic went in the IV line, and I immediately passed out. A split second (from my perspective) afterward, I opened my eyes to see the doctor telling me the operation was over!!! I couldn't believe it at first. Consciousness had been completely and totally eliminated during the procedure.

Mysterious Indeed!

Mike, if consciousness is not connected to brain function then it cannot exist in the physical world. The immutable laws of physics and in particular the law of conservation of energy, state that nothing can be added or taken away from a closed system. Our universe is such a system.

Seeing that it is proposed by Roslyn and others that those who have experienced NDE's retain a memory of what occurred, at least initially, in their consciousness, and not in their brain, then we have an insurmountable disconnect. Real memory, as we know and understand brain function, requires both chemical and electrical forms of energy to make and maintain it.

On returning to the real world after an NDE, the independent and unbounded consciousness has to transfer the requisite amount of energy in just the correct amount and to the correct places in the brain, from a different plane of existence to the current time-space continuum which we inhabit, to allow the now sentient person to "remember" what transpired when brain function was silent. This has to occur otherwise no memory of the event would be maintained. This violates the law of conservation of energy. It cannot happen without catastrophic consequences to our universe not the least of which would be that our mobile phones would stop working, a very unpleasant thought.

Consciousness is therefore mystical in origin and in its ability to circumvent and supersede all the laws that govern our existence and is beyond reach in terms of our understanding or ability to recognise, manipulate or test it. In this, it is irrational in the scientific sense, being completely unamenable to reason.

At this point, those who value an existence built on such irrationality depart to their own country. Those of us who see little value in using irrational concepts to deal with the real world of physical matter and immense forces and small forces like brain memory, will remain behind engaged in work hopefully to the benefit of all.

There is a difference

Mike:   Anaesthesia renders us unconscious but it does not stop brain activity or function. That is the difference. It is why some more enlightened doctors are careful about what they discuss while operating and some even have music playing. The patient, while unconscious and having no recall (although interestingly some people do .... rare but it happens) is still functioning at a brain level.

NDE's have been reported by people who have been in severe trauma states, unconscious, and without any brain function registering. While you were 'under' you still had brain function ..... these people did not.

It is a different thing entirely.

doesn't make sense, Roslyn.

Roslyn, you are suggesting that although reducing brain activity eliminates consciousness, eliminating brain activity preserves consciousness! This clearly doesn't make sense.

"The overwhelming evidence for those who have NDE's is that there is a consistency of experience, regardless of religion or culture, and that people have an ongoing peace of mind ..... they lose any fear of death. They also have a strong belief in God but not in religion and believe that the only thing which matters is how well we live our lives as a caring and loving human being."

The same sort of experience and sequelae were reported by many who took high doses of LSD in the 1960s, when human research on that drug was still legal. This suggests to me that strong alteration of brain functioning is involved in NDEs. LSD induces extreme hyperactivity of higher brain functions; similarly, when death is imminent there is likely an initial cessation of inhibitory functions (because inhibitory neurons are the first to cease activity in conditions of anoxia), leading to hyperexcitability.......a common brain mechanism may thus underlie LSD-induced mystical experiences and NDEs. This does not mean that such experiences are meaningless, or that they cannot change people's lives. On the contrary, I argue for a view of the physical and phenomenal as a seamless whole.....being a Buddhist and all.

Mike: That's an amazing

Mike: That's an amazing leap of logic on your part but it's not logical and it is not what I am saying.

You said: you are suggesting that although reducing brain activity eliminates consciousness, eliminating brain activity preserves consciousness! This clearly doesn't make sense.

No, I am not suggesting that at all. We were not talking about reducing brain activity but about the effect of anaesthetics on human beings.... creating a state of unconsciousness. This is a state where there is still brain function. You are unconscious, not brain dead. That would be a worry.

And I never said eliminating brain activity preserves consciousness. It doesn't make sense because you have misread or misunderstood.

What I said was, NDE's have taken place in people who do not register as having any brain function .... and yet, on recovery have talked about what happened around them while they were in this state. That is very interesting. That suggests that consciousness is more than mere brain activity.

You said: The same sort of experience and sequelae were reported by many who took high doses of LSD in the 1960s, when human research on that drug was still legal.

Yes, I read about this too and it is interesting.

You said: This suggests to me that strong alteration of brain functioning is involved in NDEs. LSD induces extreme hyperactivity of higher brain functions;

Well, of course, the interesting thing is where NDE's take place when there is NO brain function. A very different matter. One other difference between the LSD experiments and despite similarities, there were a few, is that people did not as a rule have an ongoing and radical change in terms of how they viewed life and the mystical. NDE's, unlike LSD experiments, have consistently shown that people were changed by the experience and remained changed. Whatever happened to them they believed sincerely that they had experienced something which equated to a life beyond this one and that experience left them completely free from fear and with a strong belief that living life with love was all that mattered.

By comparison, numerous people who experimented with LSD experienced ongoing psychoses and mental disorders. But it is a comprehensive subject and this barely touches upon it.

But yes, I do believe that the LSD was clearly instrumental in 'taking' people into altered states of consciousness ..... just as people have done for thousands of years using a variety of 'mind-altering' drugs. Shamanism and other such traditions are very strongly based on the use of such 'drugs' as a means of contacting, or connecting with, altered states or realms beyond this world. That is the belief. Whether these are literal states or 'aspects' of mind is the question.

But they would have said, and I agree, that such drugs should only be taken by people who have received the appropriate training, long and difficult training, because those who are not prepared can be severely and sometimes permanently damaged.

It is not that such drugs create a mystical experience but they clearly impact upon the part of the brain which is receptive to the mystical. Yes, there is a part of the brain which is wired if you like for what we would call mystical, spiritual, altered states. But it is not necessary to take such drugs to reach such states as you, as a Buddhist, would know.

responses

Roslyn you claimed "Well, of course, the interesting thing is where NDE's take place when there is NO brain function."

No, a flatline EEG does NOT mean there is no brain function. It just means that enough neurons in the vicinity of each electrode have gone silent, so that the electrode cannot detect the summed electrical potentials generated by billions of neurons. As Roger pointed out, the EEG is really not all that sensitive. There can be many neurons still firing but the EEG doesn't pick such activity up unless many billions are firing simultaneously.

"One other difference between the LSD experiments and despite similarities, there were a few, is that people did not as a rule have an ongoing and radical change in terms of how they viewed life and the mystical."

Again, not true: in Doblin's recent follow-up study of the famous Good Friday experiment in the early 1960s, in which divinity students took a psychedelic drug,  the majority of participants said their lives had been profoundly changed by the death-and-rebirth drug experience. This mystical experience induced many of them to give up on Christianity and take up other, more mystically oriented religions, such as Buddhism. Decades later, most said the changes in their outlook were deeply profound and enduring.

"NDE's, unlike LSD experiments, have consistently shown that people were changed by the experience and remained changed. Whatever happened to them they believed sincerely that they had experienced something which equated to a life beyond this one and that experience left them completely free from fear and with a strong belief that living life with love was all that mattered."

Again, this is exactly what happened to the majority of people who took a psychedelic in the Good Friday experiment. (Details can be found at maps.org, if you are interested.)

"By comparison, numerous people who experimented with LSD experienced ongoing psychoses and mental disorders."

Yes, and similar negative outcomes of NDEs have been reported as well. There was a program about this on SBS a few months ago.

Bottom line: as Roger pointed out, the notion of a nonphysical consciousness that somehow interacts with the brain violates the fundamental law of conservation of energy. I don't see any evidence for consciousness existing apart from specialised brain functions. That does not negate the validity of mystical experiences, however. They still have much to tell us.

A neat bit of footwork.

Mike, the issue is not what an EEG can and cannot do. The issue is medical researchers who have various methods to establish what they consider to be brain dead ..... that's what they do when they harvest organs..... you raise some interesting questions there. But anyway, that is what I am talking about. According to medical knowledge, these people are without brain function which makes it all the more remarkable when they 'return to life' and recount what was happening around them.

I said: "One other difference between the LSD experiments and despite similarities, there were a few, is that people did not as a rule have an ongoing and radical change in terms of how they viewed life and the mystical."

You said: "Again, not true: in Doblin's recent follow-up study of the famous Good Friday experiment in the early 1960s, in which divinity students took a psychedelic drug,  the majority of participants said their lives had been profoundly changed by the death-and-rebirth drug experience."

I said as a rule. You have cited a study done on 'divinity' students which hardly equates with 'as a rule.' They are a very specific group for this sort of experiment I would have thought. You also cite a study which did not use LSD which is what we were talking about. A neat bit of footwork there.

My comment in regard to NDE's referred to a majority being 'changed' by the experience. That is not the case with drug induced states.... LSD or whatever as a general rule.

But we were talking about LSD compared to NDE's and you have cited Psilocybin which is derived from hallucinogenic mushrooms which is a different issue to what was being debated.

Interestingly of course, this 'drug' is traditionally used by shamans to allow them to experience altered states. I am sure for divinity students this was a 'life altering' experience.

I said: "By comparison, numerous people who experimented with LSD experienced ongoing psychoses and mental disorders."

You said: "Yes, and similar negative outcomes of NDEs have been reported as well. There was a program about this on SBS a few months ago."

But not to the same degree. I have already mentioned that a small number of people experience a 'negative' NDE. My point was the majority do not, it is universal across culture, race and religion which is interesting, and for a majority it is lifechanging in a positive way.

You said: "Bottom line: as Roger pointed out, the notion of a nonphysical consciousness that somehow interacts with the brain violates the fundamental law of conservation of energy."

Well, science has discovered more than once that the laws it has been using are 'wrong,' or limited. As knowledge is gained so rules and laws change. Some do anyway. Laws are man-made explanations which serve to 'prove' a particular theory. When the theory cannot be explained, scientists begin to work around the laws and look for new ones.

You said:  "I don't see any evidence for consciousness existing apart from specialised brain functions."

That does not mean it does not exist, merely that you cannot see it. Visionaries like Leonardo Da Vinci and Galileo for instance could 'see' things when those around him could not believe they existed because they could not see the evidence. Luckily, there are visionaries still even if you are not one of them.

You said: "That does not negate the validity of mystical experiences, however. They still have much to tell us."

I agree. I merely have an open mind about what they are, why we have them, what causes them and what they mean.

Every single function of the body serves a physiological purpose. We came from a time of 'humours' to one where we can study the body at a microscopic level. No doubt, in time, we will have the capacity to know more about NDE's as we mature and advance.

you're the one dancing, Roslyn.

"I said as a rule. You have cited a study done on 'divinity' students which hardly equates with 'as a rule.' They are a very specific group for this sort of experiment I would have thought. You also cite a study which did not use LSD which is what we were talking about. A neat bit of footwork there."

Gosh. The drug administered in the Good Friday experiment was psilocybin, which has very similar effects to LSD but is shorter acting. No footwork at all on my part. The effects on the brain are identical. Both drugs are serotonin agonists.

"My comment in regard to NDE's referred to a majority being 'changed' by the experience. That is not the case with drug induced states.... LSD or whatever as a general rule."

I said it is a common response to a high-dose psychedelic experience. Even the Beatles said so. I don't know about the "majority" but the same applies to those who suffer temporary "brain death" - the majority do NOT have NDEs, and of the minority that do, some report being "changed" in a positive way, some report being "changed" in a negative way, and some do not report being "changed" at all. There was a program a few months ago on SBS about NDEs that covered all this, and that made a link to psychedelic experiences (means experiences induced by high doses of drugs like LSD, psilocybin and mescaline).

"That does not mean it does not exist, merely that you cannot see it. Visionaries like Leonardo Da Vinci and Galileo for instance could 'see' things when those around him could not believe they existed because they could not see the evidence. Luckily, there are visionaries still even if you are not one of them."

How do you know I am not a "visionary"? Just because I express skepticism about the notion that consciousness survives brain death, when it clearly does not even survive brain suppression? Really now.

I have seen no evidence contradicting the conservation of energy. NDEs certainly do not constitute such evidence because there is no evidence that the experiences reported by a tiny minority of temporarily "brain dead" patients happened when there was no brain activity.

Incidentally, one can consider Kerry Packer's report to be a kind of NDE - an experience of "nothing" in his case - so perhaps I was wrong to suggest that Packer did not have an NDE. However, his NDE was certainly not consistent with the kinds of NDEs you champion as evidence of consciousness surviving death.

Spoons, Aliens, Elvis And Uri.

Two years later, Tony Edwards, a television producer, made the first documentary on these experiences in this country. Over 2000 letters were written in response to this, and this allowed the classification of these experiences in England, which was shown to be very similar to those found in America. 

In the seventies an Israeli stage magician became world famous for stopping clocks and bending cutlery on television, using only the power of his mind, you understand. During each performance he would invite viewers to phone in and report the same phenomena occuring at their place at that moment. The station was always inundated with calls.

Funny about that. The guy made an absolute fortune.  He ended up buying Elvis's first home or something. Whether Elvis shows up for the occasional weekend jam session has not yet been reported. One thing for sure though. No one ever went broke by underestimating the gullibility of the public.

By the way. Don't you guys start dissin' alien abductions. Some of my best friends are alien abductions.    

life, cells, consciousness

Dawkins, The God Delusion, p140:

"it may be that the origin of life is not the only gap in the evolutionary story that is bridged by sheer luck, anthropically justified ... Mark Ridley in Mendel's Demon has suggested that the origin of the eucaryotic cell ... was an even more momentous, difficult and statistically improbable step than the origin of life. The origin of consciousness might be another major gap whose bridging was of the same order of improbability. ... The anthropic principle states that, since we are alive, eucaryotic and conscious, our planet has to be one of the intensely rare planets that has bridged all these gaps." [But with a conservative estimate of a billion billion planets for this to happen on, possibly not the only one]

Not My Holy Cause

I am glad to see that you avow no penchant to support holy causes. Can I hold you to that?

Mate, it's not my penchants you need concern yourself with here, in the here and now.

[Snigger]

Yet To Be Encountered In Space

Geoff, interesting drawing, any chance we might have a physical manifestation any time soon?

Certainty is only ever an illusion

David: What we believe is optional because there is no way that either side can empirically prove their position. People make their way through life by creating a set of beliefs in any given circumstances which lack certainty, which make them feel safer, more secure. It is human nature to seek to create the illusion of certainty, only ever an illusion but a comforting one, wherever they can.

Those who take hardline positions on either side are really coming from the same place...... they are demanding that there only be one way and that way is superior. People who take a rationalist scientific approach seem to feel that they are superior because they are responding purely from thought, not feeling. Interestingly, the creationists are also coming from the same place. They are also about rigid thoughts devoid of intuition it is just that they rationalise from a different place. Both are seeking certainty.

For some that 'certainty' comes with a rigid scientific explanation, for others it is religious and for yet others it is neither strictly scientific nor religious but a combination of both. It all comes down to where we perceive our 'strengths' to be. Some people feel safer believing they can rationalise everything .... the empirical scientific approach, while others feel safer believing they can intuit everything .... the instinctive, mystical, spiritual and religious approach. Some people feel comfortable with both.

From what I can see neither the Evolutionists nor the Creationists have it all right. Each seems to have bits of it which make sense, or which could make sense, but neither has all the answers.

I happen to think it is more likely there is a bit of both involved. That at some point there was conscious intervention which encouraged development along evolutionary lines. There are many instances however where 'intervention' however it has come about, is far more likely an explanation than just evolution.

I don't subscribe to any religion ..... they are all manmade and sadly wanting .... but I do subscribe to a spiritual force at work in the world. Whatever that force is, some highly evolved race which seeded this planet and now oversees it; some 'conscious' being which created all that exists and continues to create and be created in turn by it, or something else again ..... I do not know. It does not matter.

At the end of the day if what we believe helps us to live a fulfilling life then that is all that is important. If there is nothing after death then all that matters is how you have lived your life. If there is something after death then all that matters is how you have lived your life.

This world is constructed in such an ordered way ..... in fact it exists as this world only because we exist as the human beings we are. We 'create' this world through our senses as any study of the brain will show. Without our eyes there is no colour, without our ears there is no sound, without our nose there is no smell. There is energy, certainly, but it does not manifest as colour, sound and smell without the perfect receiver being at hand ..... us.

The other interesting thing is that as physiology shows, absolutely every thing which happens in the human body happens for a reason. There is nothing random. There is no chance. There is a reason for every event which takes place and for every ability which the body possesses. I remember watching a television programme years ago on how the body functions and realising this about the body's perfection. At the same time I thought, then why do we have consciousness? What purpose does consciousness serve? Many people live quite adequate lives without being conscious, truly self-aware, much of the time. All of us spend large periods of our lives no matter how self aware we may be, without seeming consciousness.... operating on automatic, or being operated by some subconscious controller within.

So why are we conscious? No doubt it serves some evolutionary purpose but one could hardly argue it is crucial to our survival or more people would be more conscious more of the time.

Consciousness therefore exists but is not necessary to this world. It is however the one part of us which could continue to function beyond this world. Consciousness therefore may well be evidence that we are more than our mere mortal humanity.

Just a thought but it was a thought which made me think there was a very good chance that this world was ordered by forces beyond our knowing even if those forces reside very much within ourselves.

Perhaps the most interesting area of scientific research today is quantum physics which is now accepting and working with beliefs that have been a part of spiritual and religious texts for thousands of years. The physicists, perhaps more than any other scientists, are dabbling in the realms of mysticism and the esoteric and finding that just as the witchdoctors, shamans, priests and wise women of old have always said ..... we are all one. As above: so below.

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate

The whole thrust of the scientific view is that we will never have the whole explanation - and that lack of an explanation of every detail is just an invitation to more work, not a pointer to the ineffable. The reason to restate the scientific rationalist view as put here, though, is to point out (yet again - but it needs explaining over and over again to the ID crowd) that you don't need any other explanation than the scientific one to see how we got here. The belief in a creator is like the Axiom of Choice, it's purely optional: there's no reason you should be put down if you want to believe that someone or something bigger than human put all this stuff in place – but equally there isn't anything big or "irreducibly complex" out there that requires you to believe in one, either.

BTW, I'm working on a review of Dawkins' new book, The God Delusion, which just might have a few more things to say on this line, eh?

Bigger than human

David: "The belief in a creator is like the Axiom of Choice, it's purely optional: there's no reason you should be put down if you want to believe that someone or something bigger than human put all this stuff in place – but equally there isn't anything big or "irreducibly complex" out there that requires you to believe in one, either."

I agree, as a believer. But in itself it is all bigger than human isn't it? I think we can all accept the science to a point. For a believer I think the Jains of India posed the most difficult question. "If God created the world, then who created God?" But scientists will be equally and forever stumped, I would think, by the question: From whence cameth the cloud of dust from which it all exploded, and before that, what was there? Nothing? Out of nothing all that we see now? One could go mad thinking about all this.

Think I will go to bed instead! Look forward to your review even if it challenges my "delusion".  Cheers.

In the light of day correction

OK. The cloud of dust which the big bang gave us so that we could swirl and spin ourselves into being. And before the big bang? That is the one I want an answer to. No time, no space, no matter, no energy, no God. Just nothing, absolutely nothing.  Can anybody tell me what the hell went on and what made all this happen because as far as I can see, none of us should be here, yet here we all are, and my head is still swirling. Oh forget, I am off to chop burrs. Must have a word with God about some of his less intelligent creations.  

The tolerance of ambiguity

David Roffey, as you know my discipline is psychology, and I try to teach at the tertiary level. One of the perpetual problems that I encounter is the desire of students (and not, alas, just undergraduate students) for certainty. Yet - if we are to make any progress in this or any other scientific endeavour (yes, yes, I know, is psychology really a science?) one requirement is the ability to accept and embrace the challenges of ambiguity and uncertainty. 

David R: being a devotee of the works of Urie Bronfenbrenner, myself, I concur!

The really big questions

Geoff: In this instance I agree with you. I think one of the difficulties is that the goal seems to be to reduce it all to either/or when as you say, such a huge mystery, is not so easily understood. There is more either/and in this world than either/or.

Darwin got some things right but not all things. The Creationists may well have some things right too. The fact is we do not know the full story. Science of any kind is speculation which the scientist then seeks to prove. Nothing has changed really. When it comes to the really big questions it is all speculation based on the information we have to hand at the time; information which may, in a hundred years, be seen to be sadly wanting.

Big Mysteries

Life per se will probably be entirely explainable one day. There is already evidence that the molecules of life are easily created, even in interstellar space, by basic chemical interactions. Under the right conditions they then may evolve into self-replicating structures, which evolve into cells, which evolve into organisms.

Consciousness, though, is more mysterious. How can interactions of brain cells give rise to a conscious mind and subjective experience? And of course the biggest Mystery of all is, why is there something rather than nothing?

Big Mysteries

And of course the biggest Mystery of all is, why is there something rather than nothing?

Quite. Indeed why was there once nothing, not even time and space, and then something? Let alone how?

There Is Little Mystery

Geoff Pahoff, there is precious little mystery actuallly. Referring to what may have been before the coming to existence of the current space-time continuum seems to imply that an answer can be determined. The truth is that no answer can be determined.

The question is devoid of any meaning and will never be answered because it cannot be.

The universe is not a mysterious process but the very essence of how an enclosed system of moving parcels of energy manifests itself.

We can try to postulate a first cause that imparted the energy to our existence, we can simply call it God or call it nothing at all. It is irrelevant what name we assign or what philosophical system we try to build around it. We can neither influence or change a single facet of how the physical laws are manifested. The best that we can do is tinker insignificantly with the effects not the causes.

On a universal scale, humankind is irrelevant. The universe does not wait breathlessly to see what we will do or say or believe next. The biomass that exists on earth cares absolutely nothing about whether we continue to exist or go extinct. In fact, the rest of the nature would be far better off if we quickly disappeared.

We are powerless before the relatively weak natural forces that seem so stupendous to us, such as earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes and the like. On the cosmic scale, these forces that terrify us so, are uncomprehendingly infinitesmal.

In spite of these facts, individuals, perhaps even you, believe that there are select groups that have a manifest destiny, decreed by a power that no one knows or ever has witnessed within this universe as a unique supreme force that gives them a special status among mankind.

Many of those in the thrall of this supposed alignment of the human with the unknowable supreme have similar characteristics; the willingness to kill others in the name of the unseen God, intolerance of "heretics", a zeal to impose a yoke on the rest of mankind amongst many others unlovely traits. If there is mystery it is perhaps why such foolishness is tolerated.

A True Believer

The question is devoid of any meaning and will never be answered because it cannot be.

With respect, Roger, you appear to have quite a few answers for questions devoid of meaning.

In spite of these facts, individuals, perhaps even you, believe that there are select groups that have a manifest destiny, decreed by a power that no one knows or ever has witnessed within this universe as a unique supreme force that gives them a special status among mankind.

No ill-fitting hats or labels please Roger. I have never said anything that would give the slightest suggestion that I believe anything of the sort. Nor do I know anybody who has.

Many of those in the thrall of this supposed alignment of the human with the unknowable supreme have similar characteristics; the willingness to kill others in the name of the unseen God, intolerance of "heretics", a zeal to impose a yoke on the rest of mankind amongst many others unlovely traits. If there is mystery it is perhaps why such foolishness is tolerated.

Ahuh. Well certainly some so enthralled have these characteristics. You do not have to look too far to see the bleeding obvious. But in my experience, most people of the type you describe do not have anything remotely like these characteristics. In fact I've never met one who has. Besides there are many who are clearly and avowedly not so "enthralled" who share these traits in abundance. This fella for example. And this. And this other miserable excuse for a human being.

Geoff Pahoff, there is precious little mystery actuallly. Referring to what may have been before the coming to existence of the current space-time continuum seems to imply that an answer can be determined. The truth is that no answer can be determined.

I envy you your faith.

A Curious Description

Geoff, please envy nothing of mine, least of all my faith, of which I have none. Personally, I have as much interest in supreme entities as they exhibit in me, namely nothing. It is purely human hubris to believe that a god/s, loving or capricious, created a universe for us.

I am glad to see that you avow no penchant to support holy causes. Can I hold you to that?

While, I see that you have dipped into the fetid barrel of known monsters to state "the bleeding obvious", that people are easily stirred to killing, I was referring to The Crusades, Oliver Cromwell, the Irish conflict, all the gory Old Testament tales, The Holy Inquisition, Sunni vs Shiite, Hindu vs Muslim vs Sikh, the Christification of the Americas, The Inca blood sacrifices etc., among numerous examples of murder and mathem in the name of "God".  You say that "most people of the type you describe do not have anything remotely like these characteristics". I beg to differ, as my short list, shows. Killing in the name of religion/gods is a human predilection.

Finally, the point I am making about questions of what was before the Big Bang, is based on solid science. Knowledge is chronological. We pass from a position of not knowing something to knowing something because of the empirical nature of our interaction with a moving existence. We can never know anything about something that does not exist in our time-space continuum (t-sc) because we will never encounter any artefacts from it.

We cannot infer it because all our inferences are rooted here in this universe. To know about something outside of this t-sc we would need to devise not just a time machine but an "existence machine" that could transport us into a different t-sc and perhaps ultimately to a super t-sc where all time-space continuums (assuming there are others) converge thereby allowing us to choose another one to explore.

Assuming, you are versed in the physics, what I have just postulated is an impossibility. You cannot move matter from one existence to another because matter (energy) is inextricably bound to the movement of the t-sc that it inhabits. Matter moved out of its t-sc would cease to exist. That is why I said that the "question is devoid any meaning".

Some theoretical physicists do postulate interactions between parallel universes but no physics can resolve the matter transference problem which would invalidate the laws of the conservation of energy in a closed system. If you or I took our 80 or 90 kilos of energy to another universe, either we would cease to exist or the universe we left would cease to exist or the laws of physics upon which our very existence and well-being depends is a chimera.

Geoff a Muslim??

Roger writes to Geoff:

In spite of these facts, individuals, perhaps even you, believe that there are select groups that have a manifest destiny, decreed by a power that no one knows or ever has witnessed within this universe as a unique supreme force that gives them a special status among mankind.

Roger, are you seriously suggesting that Geoff is a Muslim?

 

Many of those in the thrall of this supposed alignment of the human with the unknowable supreme have similar characteristics; the willingness to kill others in the name of the unseen God, intolerance of "heretics", a zeal to impose a yoke on the rest of mankind amongst many others unlovely traits. If there is mystery it is perhaps why such foolishness is tolerated.

Geoff And Consciousness

mike, never having met Geoff, I don't know whether he is a Muslim or not. He is very passionate about a few select causes but Islam I don't believe is one of them.

Regarding the extremely interesting field of the study of consciousness and self-awareness, I have found a very useful book on it; "The Astonishing Hypothesis : The Scientific Search For The Soul" by Francis Crick, (the co-discoverer of DNA) .

the Crick book

Roger, the Crick book says nothing new, and does not even address the issue of phenomenal consciousness - ie the classic mind-body problem. It concerns itself only with the so-called "easy" problems (ie, how brain processes relate to observable behavior) and avoids the "hard problem" (subjectivity), in the parlance of Aussie philosopher David Chalmers. In other words, it does not even address the Mystery of consciousness.

Crick -ey!

mike, I agree that Crick's book spends a lot of time on the mechanics of the visual cortex but the inference's are reasonably clear. The acuity of the perception of an individual's reality is intimately bound with the electro-chemical processes in the complete assembly of synapses.

His avoidance of answers to the mind-body problem is, to my mind, wise. The philosophical tug-of-war  between monism and daulism is largely a red herring in my opinion. Reality is rooted in the physical world and our interaction with it. For example, we cannot walk through walls or fly.

The excessive emphasis on the mystical connections between man and the rest of creation is a manifestation of the feverish interactions in the "soup" that internally defines our imagined physical existence.

Our search for reasons as to why we exist may befit our forelobe advantage when compared to the rest of nature; however, that this search is a chimera is easily demonstrated by what I call "the nine inch nail" scenario.

Drive a 9" nail through anyone's skull and all pretence of a different plane of reality vanishes. Clearly, we are what our "soup" makes us and there the "mystery of consciousness" is starkly revealed. Should the whole 6 billion of us be brain-damaged in a gigantic automobile accident, humankind, as we know it, would be finished.

Too premature to close minds on the issue

Roger, there are those who might argue we are all 'brain damaged' although no doubt that assessment is a matter of perception, if not degree.

There are serious questions raised as to whether we are only our brain given the number of recorded instances of people who have been literally 'brain dead' and yet, who, on return to consciousness have described what went on around them. One of the most interesting cases involved a blind patient who could clearly 'see' given the descriptions of what happened while in that brain dead state.

Doctors and nurses, while cautious by nature, are the ones who have verified remarkable instances of unconscious and brain dead patients being clearly, at some level, somewhere, conscious. These reports include people, while 'brain dead' knowing what was going on in the corridors outside their room and describing it and in one instance, telling the nurse there was a sandshoe on a window ledge, a few floors up ...... it could not be seen from any window but when efforts were made to locate it, there it was, exactly where it was seen to be by someone who should not have seen anything let alone a sandshoe that could only be seen by someone in a disembodied state.

There are numerous instances of such reports and the studies, many of them rigorous, into near death experiences certainly raise substantial questions as to the ability of consciousness to survive beyond brain function.

There may not be enough evidence to say that consciousness without a doubt survives beyond brain function but there is enough evidence to say that it might.

There is also not enough evidence to say that consciousness ends with brain death although there is enough evidence to say that it might.

It seems to me the question remains well and truly open and closing one's mind by opting for one view in absolute terms, is somewhat premature. 

A Query Over The Evidence

Roslyn, I have read a number of books on NDE and they all make for interesting reading as does the "work" of psychics or dabbling in the Ouija occult. However, I am certain that the NDE phenomena that gets reported has never been subjected to rigorous scientific scrutiny as you have suggested.

To start with, NDE is not a reproducible condition and therefore is immediately ineligible for any status as an object of study that even obliquely approaches science. In the light of this fact, NDE phenomena has to be dismissed as something that is little more than a ripping good yarn involving low grade synaptical activity. The definitive test would involve people nearly dying over and over while they communicated their higher power as seers to assembled medical scientists.

I am particularly mindful of the fact that the reporting of NDE has followed a similar pattern, in its prominence in the popular psyche, as the reporting of alien visitation and abduction. These things were unknown until some popularised account appeared and "hey presto" it's everywhere but especially in the US.

However, there is the inevitable mystical connection to all facets of NDE and I would not encourage anyone to go down that road and expect a serious hearing.

However, in the interest of not being closed minded perhaps you could tell me how you would devise a test that would validate NDE as a real phenomenon.

Can you devise a test that would validate love?

Roger: There has been quite a bit of research into NDE's, done by medical professionals I would add, and it continues.

Excerpt: In 1972 Raymond Moody published his book Life After Life, in which he gave the first detailed contemporary account of the near death experience. This was extremely exciting and totally new to most of those who read about it. It seemed to give an account of what might happen to us when we die. Moody himself was, to begin with, always careful not to make this claim, although many others made it for him. Scientific work in America began in earnest and Kenneth Ring, a psychologist, soon amassed a number of cases by advertising, and started to classify the experiences. He was able to delineate the core near death experience and suggested that this experience occurred in a number of situations, not only in those who were close to death. Bruce Greyson, a psychiatrist from Virginia, also using a large sample, constructed a questionnaire used today which classifies these experiences and allows them to be defined very precisely in current research projects. Michael Sabom, a cardiologist, was the first to stress the finding that some people who have a near death experience during a cardiac arrest report leaving their body and report watching the resuscitation process from a corner of the ceiling. This finding was electric because the brain is not functioning during this part of a cardiac arrest and if it was true that people could get information when out of their body and with a non-functioning brain, then it opened the way for scientific examination of the possibility of consciousness being separate from the brain. This could lead to scientific theories about life after death.

In 1985, Margot Grey, a British psychologist who had herself had a near death experience, set up an English study at Guy's Hospital to verify the phenomenology of the near death experience. At that time it was considered very doubtful by the medical establishment that these experiences would cross the Atlantic. Two years later, Tony Edwards, a television producer, made the first documentary on these experiences in this country. Over 2000 letters were written in response to this, and this allowed the classification of these experiences in England, which was shown to be very similar to those found in America. In the same year Margot Grey set up The International Association of Near Death Studies (UK), linked to a charity with the same name in the United States, to help promote a better understanding of the near death experience phenomenon in the UK. A number of meetings were held in London under the Chairmanship of David Lorimer and the Association flourished for some time, largely because it helped to meet the needs of very many people who had had such experiences in the past, and who were now able for the first time to meet others who had had the experience, talk about it and try to understand it. As the experience became more widely acknowledged and reported, the need for the Association grew less and it became less active.

In March 2000, after a period of inactivity, The International Association of Near Death Studies (UK) was renamed and placed under new direction as Horizon Research Foundation, a separate and independent charitable organisation that aimed to provide support for scientific research and understanding into the state of the human mind at the end of life by raising funds for high quality scientific projects, and promoting lectures, conferences and information booklets for the public and healthcare professionals. For a few years thereafter, the work of Horizon and the scientific research it sponsored received extensive national and international press coverage. This followed the ground-breaking work of Dr. Sam Parnia, who carried out the first prospective study into near death experiences in a cardiac care unit. This work showed that the experiences most probably did occur during cardiac arrest and so raised fundamental questions about the nature of consciousness and the relationship between brain and mind.

http://www.deathbed-experience-research.net/network_news/index.asp

You said: To start with, NDE is not a reproducible condition and therefore is immediately ineligible for any status as an object of study that even obliquely approaches science.

Well, NDE's are reproducible but only by the body and randomly. One of the bastions of so-called scientific thought is this demand, and understandable enough at some level, that something cannot exist unless it can be 'reproduced' at will in a laboratory.

This condition of course fails to take into account that many things may well be true, as history has shown, but scientists have neither the knowledge nor the equipment to 'test' the theory. So, in essence, the theory may be substantial but the scientific skills insubstantial.

Here, however, is where we are at. It probably does not matter what science demands or does not demand because life has its own way of throwing up truths and unexpected discoveries. Just as the major archeological finds have been made by amateurs .... no doubt because they have an open minded approach to the task .... then it stands that many scientific advances come not from rigorous laboratory experiments but from the Eureka effect. Even Einstein respected that.

So, while you and many others may dismiss NDE's because you have conditions which must be met, the fact is that NDE's exist in such numbers, and in fact are not new, but historically recorded for centuries, that their very existence demands attention.

There may well be more NDE's today because of advances in medicine but not surprisingly, the most detailed records of such things comes from the medical profession ..... traditionally doubters, but who, when faced with a reality which to them is a fact, have been forced to accept that NDE's are very real and not able to be explained away as a drug-induced state..... simply because sometimes there are no drugs involved.

 You said: The definitive test would involve people nearly dying over and over while they communicated their higher power as seers to assembled medical scientists.

The very tenor of your comment is dismissive and patronising which rather puts anything you have to say into perspective.

There are many things in life which cannot be proven empirically. Love being one of them. We believe love exists, we have 'signs' that show us it exists ..... although often they are wrong as we discover later .... and we have actions and attitudes which we attribute to this intangible thing called 'love.' But love cannot be 'reproduced' in a laboratory over and over again so would you also deduce that love does not really exist either? Perhaps you would, but not many people would agree with you.

You said: I am particularly mindful of the fact that the reporting of NDE has followed a similar pattern, in its prominence in the popular psyche, as the reporting of alien visitation and abduction. These things were unknown until some popularised account appeared and "hey presto" it's everywhere but especially in the US.

Given your attitude I would not have expected you to have researched the subject and this comment is a clear indication of your ignorance. NDE's were not unknown until some popular account appeared. They have always been everywhere and recorded in all societies from the most developed to the most primitive and they do not follow anything like the 'pattern' of alien abduction.

One major difference is that alien abductions tend to trigger ongoing 'fear' in people and NDE's are consistent in the effect that those who have had them lose all fear of death and life and become convinced that while religion is not an answer, there is a deep spirituality in human beings.

I realise you cited alien abductions to be snide because you consider NDE's in the same light. You are however, completely off the mark, whatever the cause of NDE's may be.

You said: However, there is the inevitable mystical connection to all facets of NDE and I would not encourage anyone to go down that road and expect a serious hearing.

So to you mysticism is a dirty word. Fair enough. To each their own. It is however an interesting fact that many of our greatest scientists not only had a deep respect for the mystical and the spiritual and the inexplicable but some of them also had a deep respect for things like astrology, alchemy and other esoteric subjects. And while they may have been discreet about those subjects, they admitted their interest in them and surprise, surprise, they still got a serious hearing. Luckily for humanity not all of our scientists think as you do.

You said: However, in the interest of not being closed minded perhaps you could tell me how you would devise a test that would validate NDE as a real phenomenon.

I do not require 'tests' to tell me what is real and what is not. I believe NDE's are very real. Why they exist and what causes them is another question. All one can do is consider the evidence and form an opinion as to what that cause might be.

Could you devise a test that would validate love as a real phenomenon? Something reproducible, at will, in a laboratory which would provide empirical proof that it exists?

Get A Grip, Ros

Roslyn, I do not have any interest in devising a test for love and I don't see how you connect NDE and love as being similar phenomena.

On a pedantic point, your final comment “Something reproducible, at will, in a laboratory which would provide empirical proof that it exists?" is a contradiction of ideas. Empirical evidence is rarely gathered in a laboratory. The term refers to reaching conclusions/decisions based on common knowledge and experience rather than something that is determined by scientific research. And perhaps, there is something to be learned here. Terminology, especially that which is part of significant fields of intellectual endeavour, is important because it imparts a precision and a discipline to discussions without the necessity of constantly labouring over definitions.

I wonder what you are getting at with your comment that, to me, "mysticism is a dirty word". Apart from putting words in my mouth that I did not utter, your statement is wrong. My view of mysticism is far more nuanced and complex than you imagine it to be. But in this forum we are not yet discussing mysticism.

Your further speculation on what great or lesser scientists have thought or not thought about subjects is irrelevant. To be a scientist does not automatically exclude a person from being enamoured with the irrational. Both Einstein and Newton had their foibles in this area. It is a very poor debating tactic to call on pre-eminence as a justification for your position.

Further to this, you have a rather annoying habit of making inferences where there are none. You accuse me of being snide. I am nothing of the sort and that is a serious imputation of my character. I have stated a fact. The reporting of these phenomena follows very similar paths.

More of the same: "Given your attitude I would not have expected you to have researched the subject and this comment is a clear indication of your ignorance". Firstly, did you read what I clearly wrote? I stated, for the record, that I have read a number of books on NDE. I first became interested in it when Elizabeth Kubler Ross published her book on the subject. Your comments reflect poorly on your objectivity and comprehension. I am widely read on many forms of mysticism and paranormal phenomena.

You make reference to Moody. For believers, like yourself, he is a serious researcher. For others, his work is self-serving and suspect.

Far more serious are your faulty conclusions about the lack of measurable brain function during cardiac arrest. EEG equipment is not designed to register background or maintenance activity across synapses. The lack of major spikes and waves as encountered in active brains does not automatically lead to the conclusion that nothing is happening. We do not know nearly enough about what happens in the brain under all different conditions to make such sweeping conclusions. Also, Sabom is not just an interested researcher in this field. He has a considerable vested interest.

To conclude, let's not fault my perspective, as you do. Your own clear interest seems to be to make the defence of NDE a personal crusade while making unwelcome personal comments. Therefore stop doing that and reflect on what it says about your own perspective and objectivity.

There are things we accept

Roger: My point was that there are things which we accept in life which cannot be reproduced in a laboratory nor empirically proven. This seems to be the reason that you reject NDE's and the possibility of consciousness beyond brain function.

Love is something which is not reproducible in a laboratory and yet you probably accept it as 'real.' I merely suggest that NDE's, for the moment anyway, as research continues, should be placed in the same category.

You said: “On a pedantic point, your final comment “Something reproducible, at will, in a laboratory which would provide empirical proof that it exists?" is a contradiction of ideas. Empirical evidence is rarely gathered in a laboratory.

Well, pedantic is a name you give to it and given your dislike of names applied to motive or message I am surprised that you should be doing that of which I am accused. However, I do not mind.

Empirical proof is drawn from what science defines as evidence. Science defines proof as something which can be repeated in a controlled environment, as in a laboratory in the main. You are splitting hairs here.

 You said: “Terminology, especially that which is part of significant fields of intellectual endeavour, is important because it imparts a precision and a discipline to discussions without the necessity of constantly labouring over definitions.

Yes, I agree. And it also limits it which is why terminologies rise and fall as scientists learn more and have more advanced equipment at their disposal.

You said: “I wonder what you are getting at with your comment that, to me, "mysticism is a dirty word".

I did not say you said this so I did not put the words in your mouth. You inferred that a scientist indulging in the mystical could not be considered seriously ..... logic suggests that means you see mysticism as a negative in scientists. My categorizing that as 'a dirty word' was metaphorical not literal and clearly you have taken it far too literally. It was a comment, derived from your stated position.

You said: “My view of mysticism is far more nuanced and complex than you imagine it to be. But in this forum we are not yet discussing mysticism.

Well, yes we are because you raised it in regard to scientific research suggesting that it diminished, substantially, the credibility of any researcher. That does not come across as very nuanced or complex to me .... even though that may be what your position is in general, it is clearly quite rigid when it comes to science.

You said: “Your further speculation on what great or lesser scientists have thought or not thought about subjects is irrelevant.

It is not speculation it is historically recorded fact as you seem to know going by later comments. And, it is very relevant given prejudice against anything 'mystical' in scientists or scientific research. I merely made the point that scientists who relate to the mystical can be, and have been, taken very seriously indeed. So your comment that they would not or could not be taken seriously is demonstrably wrong.

You said: “To be a scientist does not automatically exclude a person from being enamoured with the irrational. Both Einstein and Newton had their foibles in this area. It is a very poor debating tactic to call on pre-eminence as a justification for your position.

Well, whether you realise it or not you make your position very clear and give yet more weight to the argument that there is nothing nuanced or very complex about your attitude to mysticism. You use words like 'irrational' and 'foible', both negative at best and derisory at worst. And your comment about calling on pre-eminence simply does not make sense. I am merely stating, what is demonstrable historical fact, that great scientists have had an interest or involvement in the mystical and had still been taken very seriously and had still achieved great things. Perhaps because of that mysticism. But that is another debate.

You said: “Further to this, you have a rather annoying habit of making inferences where there are none. You accuse me of being snide.”

I am sorry if this upset you. But that was how your comments came across. That does not make you snide, merely someone who makes snide comments. It's a way of saying something nasty while sounding, or trying to sound, eminently reasonable and polite.

You said: “I am nothing of the sort and that is a serious imputation of my character.

Give it a break. If the worst thing of which you are ever accused is sounding snide at times it is hardly something to get in a tizz about. As I said, the comment was snide, or rather, appeared snide.... consider your character safe.

You said: “I have stated a fact. The reporting of these phenomena follows very similar paths.

Perhaps you could demonstrate that.

You said: “Firstly, did you read what I clearly wrote?”

Yes, I did, quite carefully.

You said: “I stated, for the record, that I have read a number of books on NDE. I first became interested in it when Elizabeth Kubler Ross published her book on the subject.”

Well, I would suggest you read some more. Kubler Ross documented death and dying experiences but in terms of close study of NDE's she is not one of the best. A good start though.

You said: “You make reference to Moody. For believers, like yourself, he is a serious researcher. For others, his work is self-serving and suspect.“

Would you like to demonstrate why he is self serving and suspect? I would not classify him as the be-all and end-all of researchers but merely one of many, some of whom have been more rigorous in their approach and some less. One of the difficulties with this sort of research particularly in the early days when Moody was doing it, and still today, is the lack of funding and support. But the research goes on as the link, which mentioned Moody, shows you.

You said: “Far more serious are your faulty conclusions about the lack of measurable brain function during cardiac arrest.”

Go back and read more carefully. They were not my conclusions. That was an excerpt which I marked as an excerpt and it came from a link to which you were directed. The excerpt was clearly marked and clearly ended where I posted the link.

You said: “Your own clear interest seems to be to make the defence of NDE a personal crusade.”

No, I merely defend it as a valid area of research. You seem to dismiss it out of hand. I remain open to what may or may not cause it, or what it may or may not mean about the capacity of human beings to remain conscious beyond brain function.

I do not know enough about it because no-one knows enough about it to state categorically what it may or may not be and you do not know enough either to state categorically what it is or is not, as you are doing. You are perfectly entitled to form an opinion based on your knowledge, or lack of it, and your beliefs, but it remains merely opinion.

The difference is I leave the door open and you close it. If that is a crusade in your book then so be it. I really do not care what you call it I merely seek to defend a valid and important area of research.

Roslyn, look up the

Roslyn, look up the definition of "snide". Here are some of the definitions I have.; "false", "counterfeit", "practicing deception", "dishonest", "unworthy of esteem", "low", "slyly disparaging". May I call you that?

Regarding my comment about the limits of EEG technology, if you have drawn no conclusions why did you include the reference to it.  Was it not to bolster your position?

On the reporting of NDE, the record is quite clear. I have found no reports of NDE existing prior to the 1970's. After that time, with the improvement of resusitation technology, the reported incidents of NDE increased and were validated as a popular phenomenon by Kubler-Ross and others. Similarly, the reporting of alien abductions were non-existent prior to us leaving this planet. After Whitley Streiber's Communion it became a widely reported "fact".

I am not going to labout the point but there is as much scientific literature on NDE and its likely causes as you have time to devote to read it. It's not hard to find and it is written by people who have no vested interest in maintaining NDE as a fact.

You appear to fault me for my skepticism. Do you subscribe to the notion of "killing the messenger"? You could merely state, as does Jenny, that she believes in the possibility and spare me and others the histrionics.

There is no proof that NDE is a mystical experience or a disconnection of brain and consciousness, only speculation. There is however overwhelming proof that laws such as Einstien's laws of general and special relativity are real. If they were not, our mobile phones would not work. Think about it next time you use it.

Keeping an open mind NDE

Roslyn: You wrote on NDE: "I remain open to what may or may not cause it, or what it may or may not mean about the capacity of human beings to remain conscious beyond brain function."

On this subject I actually agree with you entirely, and not because I am a Christian who might be somehow searching for some proof that there is something beyond the grave.

There are many things we do not understand and probably may never understand. Psychic powers that some people have is one of them. NDE is another. Science is probably not going to be much use to us on these sorts of phenomena.

Very strange things happened in the room just when my brother died. Enough to make one's hair stand on end. One can search for rational explanations, but that becomes more difficult if more than one person experiences the same thing at the same time in the same room. Very difficult indeed. No, there are many things we will probably never understand. And does that really matter?

My Mind Is Open

Very strange things happened in the room just when my brother died. Enough to make one's hair stand on end. One can search for rational explanations, but that becomes more difficult if more than one person experiences the same thing at the same time in the same room.

Jenny, you can't just leave it at that. Well I guess you can if you want to I suppose. But I reckon I could guarantee you a respectful hearing if you chose to tell us some more. Who knows? It might even inspire others to talk about some very strange things they have experienced?

not disputing any of that, Roger

I agree that consciousness ceases with death. The mind-body problem, though, has to do with the how and the why of the brain-mind relationship. Why are some brain processes - a minority - conscious whereas others are not? How do some neural interactions produce consciousness? How can consciousness be studied by objective methods of science when consciousness itself is purely subjective? I agree with John Horgan in his book The Undiscovered Mind which asserts that science may have reached its limits here.

Some Other Ideas

Mike, I have not read Horgan’s book but I will make sure I get a copy. With only a layman’s interest in the science, I am firmly rooted in speculation. However, I believe that Crick is asking (and speculating on) similar questions to what you are asking.

For example, what is sight? Within the world of sighted animals, the recording of photon impacts is quite remarkable in itself. However, to that, the brain adds assembly, storage, recall, recognition and interpretation. All this functionality is “hardwired” in the DNA but in away that is indecipherable without undergoing the full replication process.

In this remarkable scenario, why there is “consciousness”, of the kind that is of vital interest to our species, seems to me like a special pleading that I assume Horgan highlights in his book.

Everything within the unfolding of DNA-driven development is a wondrous process. Of all the DNA life-forms, only we can express value judgements and I wonder why we would consider that consciousness was innately more wonderful than sight. Is it perhaps because that is what we would like it to be?

A very poor analogy is found in the world of computers where computer programs are reduced to a few simple actions that manipulate the barest possible information interchange, the recognition of whether an energy state is either high or low. By cascading that bi-state information bit we get all that information technology can bring us. Should we ever be able to mimic consciousness within the organically dead world of silicon machines perhaps we will be able to intuit answers.

Roger, consciousness is indeed a mystery.

Roger, consciousness is a mystery of the first order, and the mind-body problem is as intractable today as it ever was in the past. Yes consciousness is somehow associated with higher brain activity, but how? Why? Why are some brain processes conscious but not others? Is my experience of red the same as your experience of green? Consciousness seems an anomaly in a world of physical entities and forces.

Not Even Scratching The Surface

There is not a word in this article that is original. This has been the official "gospel" for as long as I can remember. Since the start of the last century at least. But the funny thing is that the older I get, the more I find this explanation implausible. At least to the extent that it purports to be the "whole" explanation. Or even the "whole" of the skeleton" of the explanation.  No less so for taking a cheap shot at an easy cheap target like ID.

You do not have to be a believer in sky-gods to suspect there may well be a much bigger mystery at work here. Or at play. Anyway I'm not much into religion or "faith" myself. Including the faith it requires to write an article like this.

I am curious about one thing though. How does Christian de Duve explain himself? His own existence I mean. A freak of the laws of probability? Or even an inevitable outcome of the laws of probability?  If so, fine. But how is that the end of it? Where do you go from there? What else can you deduce from that important fact? If indeed it is a fact.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
© 2005-2011, Webdiary Pty Ltd
Disclaimer: This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors.
Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way,
please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary.
Margo Kingston Photo © Elaine Campaner

Recent Comments

David Roffey: {whimper} in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 3 days ago
Jenny Hume: So long mate in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 3 days ago
Fiona Reynolds: Reds (under beds?) in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 5 days ago
Justin Obodie: Why not, with a bang? in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 5 days ago
Fiona Reynolds: Dear Albatross in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 5 days ago
Michael Talbot-Wilson: Good luck in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 5 days ago
Fiona Reynolds: Goodnight and good luck in Not with a bang ... 14 weeks 2 hours ago
Margo Kingston: bye, babe in Not with a bang ... 14 weeks 3 days ago