

This Must Be Heaven - tokenadult
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/this-must-be-heaven

======
lutusp
> _According to Newsweek, Alexander’s experience proves that consciousness is
> independent of the brain, that death is an illusion, and that an eternity of
> perfect splendor awaits us beyond the grave ..._

If the account proved anything, it would be that science is dead. But let's
not let one anecdote overturn all we think we know about consciousness and
life, solely because it supports an attractive belief.

The story might be true, but we don't know this, in anything resembling a
reliable or scientific sense.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

~~~
gradschool
What specifically do we know about consciousness and life that's incompatible
with this account? It's conventional to assume that living organisms are
somehow the vessel of consciousness, but is that assumption strictly mandated
by any particular empirical evidence? How would you propose even to frame such
an idea as a rigorously testable hypothesis?

~~~
lutusp
> What specifically do we know about consciousness and life that's
> incompatible with this account?

Nothing but all of it -- the metaphysical account of life after death.

> It's conventional to assume that living organisms are somehow the vessel of
> consciousness ...

Yes. What is unconventional is to assume that the consciousness survives the
body in a different form. This would be like hypothesizing that all ice cream
cones live on in a metaphysical plane after they've melted in this one. Before
accepting this idea, I would want to see some evidence that is more than
anecdote.

> ... but is that assumption strictly mandated by any particular empirical
> evidence?

Nope. Neither is this.

> How would you propose even to frame such an idea as a rigorously testable
> hypothesis?

Good question. But the absence of a reasonable answer doesn't support an
argument in favor or life after death. The fact that we can't resolve the
central question about consciousness in a scientific way, doesn't stand as an
argument for expanding the dimensions of our ignorance into new, uncharted
territory.

