You probably know that in orthodox science there is a running heavy debate: how did consciousness arise from material stuff? They suppose that one day a bunch of molecules woke up and thought “I’m here.” How that could possibly have happened is called the “hard question” of consciousness, so-named by professor David Chalmers in 1995.
It’s a silly idea and never happened. That’s why it’s known as the “hard” question. Matter has never woken up. Matter has been enshrined in consciousness since the dawn of Creation, not the other way round.
I have two killer questions to change anyone’s world view (if they are honest). The first is: Suppose consciousness came first?
“Experts” like atheist Daniel C. Dennet would never ask such a question. Indeed, he would deny anyone the right to ask it—it would threaten his book sales! Human consciousness is a fiction, he says. It’s an illusion. A “bag of tricks” the brain plays on us.
But what if consciousness was there before anything in the material world? Then consciousness is just a given. A baseline. Max Planck, the founder of quantum mechanics, addressed this question beautifully, when he said, “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness”.
That being the case, the “hard” question is null and void. The really difficult question then becomes “What is the physical universe? How did it get there? What is it for?”
Alright, several questions, but these are the questions they should be addressing! These are matters of metaphysics (beyond physics), which at college is a department of ontology: ontology, the nature of existence and being…
Upside Down Question
Well, I spotted the same inversion in the debates about life after death. Instead of tying to “prove” there is life after death, I’d like to turn this around, as with the consciousness argument. To me, the important question is this (my second worldview question): where is the scientific EVIDENCE that there is no afterlife? Where is the PROOF that we do not live on after death?
There is no such proof… and before you get started on contradicting me for the sake of form, you cannot prove a negative. It is impossible to PROVE that something does not exist. You can only fail to prove that it does exist! So right away, that puts the materialist dodos on the back foot. They all think that reality consists only of things you can see, kick and touch!
There is abundant proof that life after death exists; that there are non-material domains, which consciousness can explore with all it’s senses; that there are other worlds and other space-times. The only way out of the self-imposed trap for the dodos is to ignore, contradict, deny or just close their eyes to all the evidence we have so far.
Thus you get writings such as:
How can we square this self-conception of ourselves as mindful, meaning-creating, free, rational, etc., agents with a universe that consists entirely of mindless, meaningless, un-free, non-rational, brute physical particles? (John Searle, Freedom and Neurobiology, pp. 4,5)
Who says the universe is composed entirely of brute physical particles? That’s the flaw in their argument. It’s set up that way, because they set it up that way! In fact, famous experiments such as the double-slit experiment, rather suggest that particles are indeed conscious and aware. At least they seem to “know” what particles at the other slit are doing!
Their’s is a self-contradictory premise meaning a statement that is logically inconsistent or incompatible with other statements: they won’t accept the evidence because “it can’t be true.” But the only reason it can’t be true is because they won’t accept the evidence! I think a child could spot the circular reasoning.
Look, even advanced physics is on my side. The First Law of Thermodynamics says that energy cannot be lost or destroyed. We are made up of information and energy (matter is just energy in disguise, remember: e = mc2 and all that). You can’t get rid of information once created. Oh sure, you can delete any carrier of said information: destroy computers, burn books, delete files, get rid of our bodies even. But the information of “us” MUST survive somewhere.
It’s a tenet of quantum physics that information cannot be destroyed, only altered or transferred to a different system but never lost. Quantum theory is weird, we all know, and in fact “the only thing going for it is that it is unquestionably correct”, according to celebrity physicist Michio Kaku. It’s what powers our TVs, computers, smartphones, etc. You can’t argue with that.
Classical physics—or rather weird misguided modern cosmology—says that information can be lost at the “event horizon” of a black hole. But since black holes are not real, just a nonsense patch to make the absurd Big Bang model work (as with dark matter), then that need not worry us either.
In other words, something of our existence, in the form of energy and information, has to survive bodily death and vanishment. It’s advanced physics! Not that survival after death could happen; but that it must happen.
So back to my question, which I pose with my tongue out and blowing a raspberry: where is your proof there is no life after death?
Of course there is no such proof, as I said. You can’t prove a negative. But you can cling to your lame suppositions, no matter how flawed and how many holes in it, for as long as you like. Just don’t let mere facts get in the way of a good theory.
Wait. Did I say good theory? That’s going too far. A theory which focuses on a tiny part of the whole and sweeps under the carpet anything outside those narrow boundaries could not be said to be a good or comprehensive theory.
Neither is the attitude of “You are wrong, wrong, damnably wrong,” or “I won’t listen to any more of this nonsense,” good science.
Consider this: if your spouse comes back from the store saying “They ran out of potatoes,” you wouldn’t immediately say, “Where’s your proof?” now would you?
Why not? Because he or she is normal, intelligent and observant and if he or she says “They ran out of potatoes,” that is almost certainly true. There would be a slight element of doubt, unless he or she went to the store manager and asked additionally if they had more potatoes in back. But if that question was asked, and there were none, then lack of potatoes is a near-certainty. Nobody is going to call your spouse stupid, dishonest, deluded or a freak.
But that’s how the mechanistic scientists approach matters beyond the material. If someone makes a simple observation (no potatoes), they know with unquestionable certainty that no-one in the history of the world has ever run out of potatoes, NOR IS IT EVEN POSSIBLE TO RUN OUT OF POTATOES! Therefore, anyone who says they did is totally mistaken, possibly mentally unstable.
Phooey!
So, with the reader’s kind permission, I’ll continue to ignore what “science” has to say and look at real facts.
Live well, Live forever!
To your good health,
Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby
The Official Alternative Doctor
