Life After Death
Salon.com Books | We see dead people?
Yeah, and if energy is neither created nor destroyed, what he’s saying makes perfect sense, that this energy should persist. But whether or not it should persist as a being that can fly around the room and communicate with you, that’s something else entirely. What would it be like to be that energy? That’s the question nobody can really answer. But it just seemed sort of evident when he talked about it that the energy of your consciousness is going to persist. It has to. I wish I had a background in quantum mechanics, because I think that if one day we do have an answer that’s where it will come from.
Okay, so energy persists. Yes. I understand that. Here’s the biggest problem I immediately see with Gerry Nahum’s research, though, as it’s described by author Mary Roach in her interview on salon.com: Considering the presumed finite supply of energy, the age of the universe, and the number of conscious beings who’ve inhabited even just our own planet, exactly whose energy is it that’s persisting?? Based on what we know of thermodynamics, it’s not unreasonable to presume that one kind of strong reaction (the consciousness of a live person, for example) might borrow energy from its immediate environment — much as a growing plant will use the energy of decaying microorganisms in the soil around it. So, if our consciousness is continually using and re-using the energy around us (as really it must), then ALL consciousness is only an amalgamation of atomic bits and pieces from other kinds of energetic events. Nahum appeals to thermodynamics on the one hand, but then presumes — for no reason mentioned by Roach in this interview — that the energy of consciousness persists in an organized form — like a radio wave sent into deep space. It seems very unlikely that in an energetic environment like our planet (or even our galaxy), organized energy would remain organized long enough to result in ghosties or other kinds of spooks.
I’m just saying…
Anyway, check out salon.com’s interview. It’s fun and interesting. For that matter, it wouldn’t hurt to also check out Mary Roach’s new book Spook: Science Tackles the Afterlife.
I think it’s possible to believe and disbelieve at the same time. I definitely think it’s possible to apply critical thinking and be skeptical and at the same time ignore critical thinking and believe in a ghost in your house. No one can study love in the laboratory, or even human memory — OK, we understand the parts of the brain connected with memory, but to me the fact that you can even call up an image from 10 years ago, and, boom, there it is in front of your eyes, in your head, that’ll never be fully explained to me. Or dreams — even though we have an explanation, it seems like a bizarre mystery.
It does seem that way, doesn’t it? Consciousness is a fascinating thing. Our self-awareness. Our (apparently) uniquely human way of experiencing what it is to be our selves. It all seems so very important — as though it MUST mean something.
If you’re asking me whether it does mean something, I’d have to answer that I don’t know. I think it’s unlikely, though, that our lives have any deeper meaning in the conventional theistic religious sense or that our consciousness somehow persists after death.
I’m reminded of something I read yesterday in salon.com — in the article about Richard Thompson, the attorney defending “Intelligent Design” in Pennsylvania. When asked why the whole “Intelligent Design” battles matters so much to him, Thompson replied:
“If you are nothing but an accident of nature, then nothing you do is dependent on objective truth(…) There is no life after death. (…) If you go to bed, and if you die its OK, you’re just another piece of matter bouncing around and you’ll change into something else. That’s why, even if 100 million scientists say we are unplanned, that we’re just purposeless beings in this universe, the general population won’t buy it. And neither will I.”
And that’s really what all of this — this search for proof of conscious existence after death — is all about, too. It’s all about the BIG FEAR that your existence as a conscious being, no matter how significant it seems to you, really has no deep meaning.
You are a temporary clump of matter and energy in the big soup of the universe.
That’s it.
Now, here’s my secret to happy life: Know that and be okay with it. Be more than okay with it. Be happy about it! Our universe is a nice place! It’s good to be a part of it. It’s good to know that my energy, when its done being me, will move on to become a part of something else. A tree? A rock? A star in some distant galaxy? All good!!
Posted by RebeccaHartong on October 21, 2005 under Uncategorized
HiRebecca
Matter – schmatter! There’s a whole invisible world out there. I read the review of “Spooks” Powells sends me a review a day & I should order the book but my house is overflowing with books waiting to be read & hubby hardly has room for his Oxygen machine. ‘ve heard ministers at funerals quote that “Matter is neither created or destroyed” theory & if it brings comfort, why not? The thing is, we lost a daughter about a year ago (same age as you, a RN who OD’d, ) I used to joke that when I died, tossme on my compost pile, now I’m running back & forth to the cemetary putting seasonal decorations on Betsy’s grave & trying to get the grass to grow. She lived in Seattle, we had her sent back her to OH & it’s comforting. My parents are buried in Cleveland in a neighborhood you don’t go to afteer dark. So I prefer to believe in the spirit world. I prefer to believe that when I’ve had certain dreams, they are a message or certain feelings or touch. You probably have received all kinds of comments on this, I hope none have been hurtful. You seem to be a thoughtful person who agrees with what I think. Imet you a week ago, on the comment page of Garrison Keiler’s post in SALON. I like him. too, but was shocked at some of the comments his innocent little article provoked. But I liked yours.
Thanks, Queenie
Thanks for the kind words, Queenie. I’m so sorry for the terrible loss you must feel. I think that, to a great degree, we believe what we have to believe in order to make it through the day-to-day. If some of those beliefs can’t be proven in a scientific sense, but they bring comfort and cause no harm… who’s to criticize?
I don’t know you, so I hope I’m not intruding by commenting on here. I’m reading Mary Roach’s book, “Spook” right now, and I was doing a little googling to try and find out more about Nahum’s research. I stumbled on your blog thing, and read a bit. I’m not sure what you are going through, but I recently lost my mother and have been unable to stop wondering about the point(lessness) of life, the mysteries of death, etc. I wasn’t able to come up with much as far as Nahum’s research that didn’t directly quote Roach’s book. I am no scientist myself (just an educated and overly curious reader), but it seems as though Roach’s understanding of Nahums ideas is very limited. I wish that she gave more voice to Nahum himself, because out of all the theories she put forth in her book, his was the most scientifically compelling. However, she limits her explanation of his ideas to her understanding of them. From what I was able to gather, he believes that the energy that is released at death does not necessarily maintain its shape, form or any organization whatsoever once it leaves the body lifeless behind. It’s more of a “free-flowing consciousness” that merges with all of the other released “consciousness” and exists as one source pool of energy (and perhaps, from which new/existing life is sprung). I think it’s unfathomable for us to really imagine what it would be like to be “conscious” without the framework of these bodies, these minds, these sensations and experiences, so it is easy for us to use words like “spirit” or “soul” that continue to contain us as individuals with seperate identities even after “we” have left behind the only thing that holds us apart : our bodies. For now, we feel safe with these boundaries, I guess.. I do not think that was Nahum’s idea that we are sent like radio waves into outerspace, just Roach’s frightened (or ignorant?) interpretation of them… And maybe it’s not as dreary as you may think. Maybe it’s beautiful (though we will have no senses with which to perceive it, or minds with which to label it)… But I picture it like love because that’s the only feeling I’ve ever experienced that can transcend my “body centered” experience of the world. Love can seemingly stop time, it can make the world fall away… And this love without the boundaries of these bodies, this world, without the restrictions of even space or time… just everwhere and everything. It’s absolutely awe inspriing. Maybe this is just comforting for me to imagine it this way. But why does it have to be dreary?
No, you’re not intruding at all, Stephanie! Most of the people who’ve commented on this site are people I’ve never met. I welcome your comments — and I hope you’ll be back to read and comment on other entries.
It seems to me that referring to energy as “free-flowing consciousness” implies that there must be SOME kind of organization to it. Else, how could there be consciousness?
I agree with you, though, that the after-life (for lack of a better term) doesn’t have to be dreary at all! Even without conscious existence — just knowing that all the energy in my body will be released into the universe — well, that’s a good thing! I don’t believe there will be any sort of “me” in ANY form left to appreciate “my” new existence, but that’s not necessarily a big deal.
I’m sorry for you recent loss, by the way. My own mother died about three years ago so I can appreciate some of what you’re going through.