Michael Prescott's Blog

“Particle physics does not prohibit one afterlife”
Yes it does Juan. As Sean Carroll explains:
“Claims that some form of consciousness persists after our bodies die and decay into their constituent atoms face one huge, insuperable obstacle: the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood, and there’s no way within those laws to allow for the information stored in our brains to persist after we die. If you claim that some form of soul persists beyond death, what particles is that soul made of? What forces are holding it together? How does it interact with ordinary matter?
Even if you don’t believe that human beings are “simply” collections of atoms evolving and interacting according to rules laid down in the Standard Model of particle physics, most people would grudgingly admit that atoms are part of who we are. If it’s really nothing but atoms and the known forces, there is clearly no way for the soul to survive death.
Within QFT, there can’t be a new collection of “spirit particles” and “spirit forces” that interact with our regular atoms, because we would have detected them in existing experiments. Ockham’s razor is not on your side here, since you have to posit a completely new realm of reality obeying very different rules than the ones we know.
There needs to be a new term (at minimum) on the right, representing how the soul interacts with electrons. (If that term doesn’t exist, electrons will just go on their way as if there weren’t any soul at all, and then what’s the point?) So any respectable scientist who took this idea seriously would be asking — what form does that interaction take? Is it local in spacetime? Does the soul respect gauge invariance and Lorentz invariance? Does the soul have a Hamiltonian? Do the interactions preserve unitarity and conservation of information?
Nobody ever asks these questions out loud, possibly because of how silly they sound. Once you start asking them, the choice you are faced with becomes clear: either overthrow everything we think we have learned about modern physics, or distrust the stew of religious accounts/unreliable testimony/wishful thinking that makes people believe in the possibility of life after death. It’s not a difficult decision, as scientific theory-choice goes.”
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/physics-and-the-immortality-of-the-soul/
Life after death can only be a belief, nothing more. It has nothing to do with science. It is a religious belief that has its origins in human superstition.
There is no scientific evidence that ” quantum processes are involved in neuron-to-neuron communication or brain function.”
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2013/12/22/quantum-theory-wont-save-soul/#.V9WUu-T6tPY
As for Stuart Hameroff’s fringe ideas, they have not held up within the scientific community but are usually promoted by paranormal believers. Hameroff put forward the idea that microtubules may have quantum effects on neuronal behaviours. There is no scientific evidence to demonstrate this idea. Max Tegmark actually mathematically disproved such ideas.
Max Tegmark, “The Importance of Quantum Decoherence in Brain Processes,” Phys. Rev. E 61 (2000) 4194-4206.
In short all the scientific evidence says when we are dead when we are dead. All the medical studies have shown us consciousness cannot exist independently of a brain. After brain death all functions in the brainstem cease to exist, consciousness is permanently lost. There are insects, animals, plants dying in nature every second, every minute, every day. The idea of ‘life’ after death is a human invention based on wishful thinking.
As explained in previous posts I would love a life after death for myself and the animals I love due to so much pain here but this is just denying everyday reality and I will not be a weak victim to wishful thinking like many here. I accept our cold outcome. We must embrace death it is all around us, and we will all face it one day.

Matt Rouge interesting comment about Asperger’s syndrome. I have been diagnosed with things but not Aspeger’s I am afraid.
There probably is a link amongst some individuals in the skeptic community with bullying or sadism. For example some get great kicks out of debunking paranormal, pseudoscientific or superstitious beliefs to shatter or put other peoples fantasies down and then feel better about themselves.
Susan Gerbic, Sharon Hill while not sadistic are actually in the skeptic movement just to try and feel big about themselves and put others down. This does not mean all skeptics are like this. Joseph McCabe for example a skeptic I greatly admirer was a very kind man.
I don’t have time to study all the psychology behind it all. But if you look at paranormal believers there are also links with lack of science education, fantasy proness, irrational thinking etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranormal#Psychology
There seems to be lack of data on skeptics.
I will confess however, that paranormal believers have better quality of life. Believing in things makes people happier. Many skeptics have been depressed like myself. I also think there are more skeptical men that woman. If you look at all the famous skeptics these days many of them are unmarried men.

At this point I think Bill is just trolling us. Probably best to ignore him.
It was interesting at first to see a Skeptic so clearly lay out his thought processes, but as Willow’s evil doppelgänger would say, “Bored now.”

@MP – hear hear.

Michael I am not trolling anybody. Someone said how does the laws of physics contradict the afterlife and I explained how, even quoting a top physicist. The fact of the matter is when you guys start hearing things you don’t like you throw out ad-hominems or accuse people of trolling, this is no different than what the militant skeptics do by calling believers cranks. You can read over my posts I never do this.
On the JREF forum in the past I have actually defended you Michael and described you as an academic. There are many people on that forum that laugh at you and call you a ‘crank’ because you believe blatantly fraudulent mediums like Eusapia Palladino actually levitated a table. But I don’t hold that against you. Elsewhere on here you have written decent blog postings that interest me.
I am just telling you how the world works, I do not think it’s really a skeptical mindset it is just a scientific one. I know you do not like the cold concrete fact that when we die that is it, but that is reality I am afraid.
Fair play I won’t comment on this blog again as things seems to have turned non-civil here (sorry if I bore you) I confess I do suffer from manic depression so perhaps my posts come across as very negative but I can assure you I have no interest in trolling anybody, I have never done that and never will. I am serious about these topics.
But I will debunk this psi Encyclopedia (I was already working on a long essay piece on errors in psi research). I’m just going through each individual article now. Take care.
Sorry I will not be able to reply to any further users on here, but I will read anything you have to say. Thanks again for letting me post here. All good things come to an end.

Michael wrote,
||At this point I think Bill is just trolling us. Probably best to ignore him.||
It would be nice to have this debate with a non-troll Skeptic with a robust intellect. Sadly, I’ve never had the pleasure. I think anyone with those qualifications instinctively shies away from that community.

Michael said:
“At this point I think Bill is just trolling us.”
Why do you think so? Seems to me he sees science as the ultimate authority, and is simply saying so repeatedly. But how does that make him a troll? Maybe I missed something.

Bill wrote,
||Sorry I will not be able to reply to any further users on here, but I will read anything you have to say. Thanks again for letting me post here. All good things come to an end.||
And bad things. 🙂
I think Bill’s interactions here could be considered trolling in one sense or another, but, in my experience, Skeptics love, hunger for, indeed are absolutely ravenous for such battles with “believers.” The will delightedly wade into any forum of people who hold beliefs not in accordance with their own (i.e., just about everybody) and start frothing and snarling away. To be fair to Bill, he is less of a frother and snarler than an ultra-persistent head-butter; more of a weregoat than a werewolf.
I enjoy a good debate as well, but I would never go to, say, a fundamentalist Christian forum and start arguing for my New Age belief system. I understand in advance that the people there consider evangelical Christianity their starting point. If someone in that belief system wants to consider other viewpoints, they know that there are places online or elsewhere where they can experience that. It comes down to respect.
Now, I certainly think Michael’s forum here is open to a wide range of perspectives. But our starting point is that the phenomena have at least some validity in reality. It’s not respectful to come here and keen, “But it’s not twoo, it can’t be TWOOOOO!”

And all “consciousness”. Cheers.

“Someone said how does the laws of physics contradict the afterlife and I explained how, even quoting a top physicist.”
I already refuted the Carroll argument. And Carroll does not mention any principle of sciences that is incompatible with the existence of the afterlife. What he does is not science but develop an argument with probably wrong assumptions.

Off topic can I suggest a book for review..or for other readers here to check out? “An Atheist in Heaven” by Paul Davids.
It’s let down by it’s title as it immediately conjures up a religious themed NDE account or the like, when its nothing of the kind.
It’s the massively detailed account of the events behind two documentary films entitled the Life After Death Project, which I’m not familiar with though no doubt many here are. Whatever the merits or otherwise of the documentaries the events detailed in the book are certainly fascinating, to me at least as I’ve lived and experienced exactly the same kind of sequence of incidents that are so suggestive to the author..as they were to me..of a particular deceased person shaping events. (A proposition which, however, defies all logic when a mechanism is imagined.)
In essence it details his experiences of multiplying coincidences..and those of Gary Schwartz when he got involved..that seem to cry out that the late Forest J Ackerman (again never heard of him but whom I take to be the horror/scifi/fantasy movie analogue of Stan Lee in the world of comic books)is screaming out from the other side “I’m still here!”

Congrats on the launch!
Also great rebuttals against Bill’s usual silliness.

My guess is Bill has no scientific training and likely his general knowledge of science is mediocre to lacking.
I’ve found proponents on the whole to be far better versed in nuances/details of science and philosophy, whereas “skeptics” are just snatching talking points from websites and adding some condescending language to claim intellectual high ground.

Bill says:
“Anything ‘paranormal’ or ‘psi’ is not scientifically possible, there is absolutely no empirical evidence it exists. It contradicts everything we know about the way reality works through years of empirical experiment and investigation. It is actually narrow-minded to say paranormal powers exist because all evidence from science has shown us they possibly cannot do”.
We cannot say some alleged anomalous phenomenon is scientifically impossible unless we are in a position to know that current scientific laws *completely* describe reality (a T.O.E so to speak). Indeed, the history of science reveals that what is scientifically impossible at one time, can become scientifically possible at a later time once old theories are replaced by new ones.
And it’s also worth pointing out that, in any case, we’re not talking about phenomena that contradicts current physical laws, such as a claim of finding particles or objects travelling faster than the speed of light. We are talking about psi and whether consciousness survives death. Since current physical laws wholly leave out consciousness in their description of reality, then we are scarcely in a position to declare psi, or consciousness surviving death, contravenes such physical laws. If physical laws do not explain the existence of consciousness *whilst we are embodied*, then how on earth could they rule out disembodied consciousness? And since psi appears to be an ability of consciousness, how could current physical laws possibly rule out psi?
Physical laws are supposed to describe reality, not dictate to reality what can or cannot exist. If we have a phenomenon that has been universally reported, we cannot assert it doesn’t exist because it doesn’t fit in with some pre-defined laws. Rather, a more encompassing theory needs to be advanced. A new theory, which while still explaining existing phenomena, is able to also accommodate this “anomalous” phenomenon.

“My only disappointment/frustration with the book as a whole is the inclusion of some very minor trivial incidents which don’t really fit in with the others but which can be seized on as evidence of an excessive desire to see patterns and credit everything to the spirit of Ackerman.”
I agree. The author tells us early on that he wanted to include everything that happened. It might’ve been better if he’d left some of it out. For instance, the little anecdote about how he and Joe Moe both happened to arrive at Ackerman’s crypt at the same time is not likely to persuade anyone.
I haven’t gotten to the end yet so I haven’t read about the séance with the dead celebrities and Roswell chatter. Since the author seems to have his own fringe-ish theories about Roswell, it’s possible that some kind of living agent psi was involved – or (of course) that the medium was a fake who’d done advance research on the sitters.

Regarding the Ackerman book, there’s a good interview with the author over on the Skeptico website: http://skeptiko.com/paul-davids-321/

Bill quotes Sean Carroll extensively. So in this post I’ll just be addressing what Sean Carroll says. As a preliminary, readers might be interested in a short blog entry I wrote in response to one of Sean Carroll’s articles: http://ian-wardell.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/sean-carroll-and-philosophy-of-mind-and.html
Anyway, Sean Carroll says:
“Claims that some form of consciousness persists after our bodies die and decay into their constituent atoms face one huge, insuperable obstacle: the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood, and there’s no way within those laws to allow for the information stored in our brains to persist after we die”.
This I address in my previous post. I also address it in my blog entry I just linked to. But essentially the current laws of physics very accurately describe the non-conscious realm, but completely fail to account for consciousness. Indeed, his statement above (and many other statements by him) only make sense should some type of materialism be true.
Now, I have argued elsewhere that materialism is simply untenable (http://ian-wardell.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/neither-modern-materialism-nor-science.html). But let’s leave that aside. Let’s assume for the sake of argument materialism is tenable. However, it seems to me that a person who subscribes to an afterlife — or at least an afterlife where a soul dwells in some afterlife realm – would necessarily reject any type of materialism. Hence, Sean Carroll cannot simply assume materialism at the outset for that is to effectively say “let’s assume we’re purely material beings, it then follows we cannot have an immaterial existence”. Well . .duh! Of course. But this is precisely what Sean Carroll does, namely assume materialism is correct at the outset. He doesn’t actually advance any arguments for materialism, and skeptics never do, or at least I’m unable to find any of their arguments. I’m one of the very few people in existence who has read the massive “The Myth of an Afterlife” – a book that has around 700 pages and around 20 different authors. Nowhere in the whole volume are any arguments for materialism advanced! (I’ll get around to reviewing that book eventually, meanwhile I wrote a very much partial review for those who are interested (http://ian-wardell.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/keith-augustine-in-myth-of-afterlife.html)).
Sean Carroll says:
“If you claim that some form of soul persists beyond death, what particles is that soul made of? What forces are holding it together? “
This is preposterous. Why on earth does he imagine that souls would be made of particles? Compelling arguments can be made which strongly suggest that the soul is simple.
Sean Carroll says:
“How does it interact with ordinary matter? “
Which would be the same as asking how does consciousness interact with matter. And we don’t know. And this belies his claim that ‘the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood’. The laws of physics leave out consciousness in their description of reality, and therefore, unsurprisingly, also leave out how consciousness interacts with matter. But I see no reason why this should be particularly problematic. In other words that we couldn’t in principle dream up some scientific theory which relates how consciousness interacts with its brain. It presumably is only problematic if we assume — as Carroll does — that ‘the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood’. But they’re not as they don’t include consciousness. But now we’re going around in a circle! Again we simply get back to the underlying problem of him assuming the correctness of materialism at the outset.
Sean Carroll says:
“Within QFT, there can’t be a new collection of “spirit particles” and “spirit forces” that interact with our regular atoms, because we would have detected them in existing experiments. Ockham’s razor is not on your side here, since you have to posit a completely new realm of reality obeying very different rules than the ones we know.
There needs to be a new term (at minimum) on the right, representing how the soul interacts with electrons. (If that term doesn’t exist, electrons will just go on their way as if there weren’t any soul at all, and then what’s the point?) “
2 points should be stressed here:
a) Necessarily, consciousness is causally efficacious as I explain in the following blog entry: http://ian-wardell.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/can-consciousness-be-causally.html.
b) Conceding consciousness is causally efficacious, but claiming consciousness doesn’t interact with the physical processes since consciousness is the very same thing as physical processes, is not tenable. I briefly explain why this is so near the end of my blog entry I just linked to. But, because this is such an important point, I wrote another blog entry exclusively devoted to this issue (http://ian-wardell.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/materialismphysicalism-is-incompatible.html).
So if my reasoning is correct – and I’m quite unable to see how it could possibly not be correct –then it is simply conceptually incoherent to suppose consciousness doesn’t affect physical processes. In which case Carroll’s statement “we would have detected them in existing experiments” simply cannot be true. The failure to detect any influence cannot overturn that which is conceptually incoherent.
Moreover, contrary to what Sean Carroll asserts, it is questionable whether there is any such conflict between our empirical investigations and what reason dictates. William Hasker in his review of “The Myth of an Afterlife” addresses this point. He says:
”What is in question is whether an immaterial mind may be exerting a causal influence on what happens in the brain at a micro-level. Influence on this scale is far below the limits of our present capacity to detect. Furthermore, we have only the vaguest notion of what it is we would be trying to detect because we know little about how the brain actually works at this level. (From here: http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/62746-the-myth-of-an-afterlife-the-case-against-life-after-death/)
What Hasker says here directly contradicts what Sean Carroll claims, and indeed directly what some of the authors of “the myth of an afterlife” claim. But what Carrol et al claim simply cannot be correct. So I’m putting my money on Hasker!

“Can you please create articles for skeptics of the paranormal, i.e. Harry Houdini, Joseph Rinn, Edward Clodd, Joseph McCabe, Stanley LeFevre Krebs, Charles Arthur Mercier, Joseph Jastrow, Joseph Dunninger, Milbourne Christopher, Rose Mackenberg, C. E. M. Hansel, Martin Gardner etc. ”
I think this is a great idea. I e-mailed Andreas Sommer, a historian of psychology and psychical research at Cambridge University and the author of the encyclopedia’s entry on Edmund Gurney, about doing just that. He is completing a book on the history of early professionalised psychology and psychical research. He has lots of dirt on guys like Jastrow, Hall, Wundt, etc. They basically pioneered the skeptic m.o. – polemic, ridicule, etc. while ignoring the best data. Careful what you wish for, “Bill”.

By the way, has anyone read the ‘crisis apparition’ account by Nigel Buckmaster, the individual who bequested the funding for the psi-encyclopedia project?
http://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/nigel-buckmaster-0
There are actually two accounts, his and his older sister’s, both experienced in the aftermath of their mother’s death. They both tally up very well and include elements of OBE experience.
This part struck me in particular: ‘My heart felt burning hot with love and joy—words cannot describe it. I felt my heart being filled with liquid divine love—an exquisitely heavenly experience’.
What a wonderful way to express what was felt: his heart ‘being filled with liquid divine love’.

Ian writes: “Physical laws are supposed to describe reality, not dictate to reality what can or cannot exist. If we have a phenomenon that has been universally reported, we cannot assert it doesn’t exist because it doesn’t fit in with some pre-defined laws. Rather, a more encompassing theory needs to be advanced. A new theory, which while still explaining existing phenomena, is able to also accommodate this “anomalous” phenomenon.”
And isn’t it astonishing that the above should need to be spelled out to anyone of even average intelligence? But then fundamentalism of any persuasion is a perversity of mind rather than a rationale.

“It’s a little like going onto a baseball blog and saying that baseball sucks, everybody knows it, and anyone who disagrees is an inbred moron.”
However, this analogy is not valid, because here is not whether you like psi and afterlife, but if psi and afterlife exist and what are their attributes. He has stated some arguments and we have already refuted.