Is there life after death? Most rational individuals would say no. The brain creates consciousness, and when the brain dies, consciousness is annihilated. Problem solved. However, this quick dismissal of the afterlife may actually be somewhat irrational based upon what we know from the history of western philosophy. This view of the brain-mind problem is based upon what I'd like to call the "sticks with heads" model of reality. In this view, there is an objective universe within which exists a planet, earth, upon which walk human beings (sticks) who have brains (heads) that are conscious of this objective universe. Sounds good so far? Let's back up a bit to see what's wrong with this picture. The fundamental assumption of this model of reality is that there is an objective universe. And yet, in the history of western philosophy, it has never been proven that there exists an objective world independent of human consciousness. One of my favorite philosophers is George Berkeley (1687-1753) whose book Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous, made a huge impression upon me when I read it in high school. In the book, Berkeley demolishes the idea that there can be an objective universe beyond our awareness (except in the mind of God). According to Berkeley, we are only aware of our sensations of so-called objective phenomena. If we eat an apple, we are aware of the taste, the smell, the textures, the shape and color. But these are all subjective sensations. If you take away these aspects of personal consciousness, what are you left with? Nothing. This, by the way, is something that the Buddha was acutely conscious of, which is why he said that at the heart of all things there is nothing, the void. The Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711-1776) was the next philosopher to demolish the idea of a stable rational world. He argued, for example, that the notion of cause and effect was spurious. We only infer that event x causes event y, because we have previously experienced cases where events like x were always followed by events like y. And yet, according to Hume, there is no reason in the world why the next time event x happens, event z or q or s won't be the result. It was this conundrum that Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) said "woke me up from my dogmatic slumber," and caused him to rush to the aid of the objective (or transcendental) world with his Critique of Pure Reason. The amazing thing is that while Kant gave us some reason for hope (e.g. his transcendental categories of reason), he basically said that we CANNOT know the objective world (which he called noumena, or "things-in-themselves."). This was about as far as western philosophy ever made it in terms of trying to prove the existence of the objective world. After this there were the German idealists, who made quite a mess of Kant's philosophy, and the British positivists, who tried to show that only certain kinds of sentences had any objective meaning, and the American pragmatists, who didn't care whether there was an objective world or not just as long as there was some sort of cash value in whatever one believed, and a few other schools of thought. But nobody ever proved the existence of the objective world -- that is, the world that exists apart from man's consciousness of it. This means that the "sticks with heads" model of reality isn't really valid. And if this is so, then the argument for dismissing life after death (e.g. annihilation of the brain destroys consciousness) is not valid either. Notice that I'm using reason here, not wild New Age speculation.






Recent Comments