Comments on: How I Became an Atheist, Why I Became an Atheist: Part 2

By: Eclectic

Eclectic — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:22:15 +0000

Ah, the question of Truth. What is Reality? Are we all prisoners in Plato’s cave, seeing shadows on the wall of a much larger and richer reality?
The answer of science is to dodge the question. Science’s goal is to predict. What it predicts is future observations.
Whether those observations reflect an objective reality is open for philosophical debate. At most science can say “after a lot of careful testing, the observable world behaves as if there were a reality that followed certain rules”.
We could be all living in The Matrix where those rules are all simulated. But as long as we cannot distinguish the two situations, the easier-to-work-with mental model has obvious advantages.
If you can find any situation which would be observed differnetly in a “real” reality and a simulated reality, then we have a possible experiment to distinguish the two,
But as long as both explanations make the same predictions about what we’ll observe, then as far as science is concerned, there is no difference between the two. How you arrive at a prediction is a matter of convenience. The only thing that matters in the end is whether the predictions come true.

By: Buck Fuddy

Buck Fuddy — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:30:10 +0000

“My experience of anesthesia *was* subjective, and by itself it doesn’t prove the non-existence of the soul, any more than Michael’s subjective experience of being saved by Jesus Christ (see comment to Part 3 of this piece) proves the existence of Jesus Christ. This piece wasn’t meant to be an argument — it was meant to be a personal narrative.”

Nevertheless, it is a reliable first-hand report of an experience, and it is repeatable. Michael’s experience is also repeatable. I tried doing exactly what he said he did, under similar circumstances, and got a very different result. I haven’t experienced general anesthesia yet, but many others have, and while a few report incredible out-of-body experiences, most people’s experiences are very similar to yours.
What does this mean? Maybe it means only certain people have souls, but I don’t think so.
I think it means that some people’s brains take what little information is available while they are coming out of anesthesia, along with voices and other sounds and impressions they might have experienced while semiconscious, and try to throw together something meaningful out of the bits and pieces.
There is ample evidence that our brains do lots of similar things. For example, our eyes are only capable of perceiving color in a relatively small area at the center of our field of vision, yet the brain carefully fills in colors for everything we see based on information it has already recorded. It also carefully edits out the network of blood vessels that cover our retinas, partially obscuring our view.
Anesthesia, by the way, is not an exact science. Anesthesiologists use a battery of different chemicals to achieve different states of immobility, unconsciousness and analgesia. We tend to think that our ability to move, feel and be aware are turned of with one switch, but they are actually largely independent and under the control of different anesthetic agents. The anesthesiologist tries to maintain all three parameters at the same level throughout a procedure, but it isn’t unusual for them to fluctuate considerably, and different people have different sensitivities to different anesthetic agents.
So as a patient lies in recovery, coming out of anesthesia, they may have a trace of a memory of awareness without sensation, or sounds experienced in the absence of awareness, and the mind quickly stitches together these loose threads to weave a tapestry of experience. Needless to say, the experience will often end up being profoundly weird by the time the patient gets around to trying to relate it to another person.
So I think the reason why a few people have different experiences under anesthesia is easily accounted for by the fact that people respond differently to different anesthetics.

By: Buck Fuddy

Buck Fuddy — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 09:42:15 +0000

I should apologise for blundering in here uninvited, by the way!

We’re all uninvited here. And apparently we’re all welcome, if we behave ourselves. That doesn’t mean we can’t present differing points of view, as long as we’re all honest and respectful.
The great thing about people having different perspectives is that, if we share them honestly, it broadens all of our perspectives. We understand more about the world if we can borrow other people’s experiences and insights. So, speaking strictly for myself, please continue to present yours!

By: Nikki

Nikki — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 07:09:21 +0000

Oh boy. I think I didn’t explain what I meant very well. These are tricky questions to grapple with, and I wasn’t trying to slip into a semantic debate, honestly!
Okay, thinking hard….
What I meant to say was…We’re trapped in our humanity. We can’t ever perceive anything outside of the experience of being human, I don’t think. Science (and religion) are human inventions. The very idea of ‘truth’ is a human invention.
As for anaesthesia, well, yes, I’ve experience the same ‘great blankness’ – twice. But I don’t know, for me, that it was evidence of anything, other than chemical reaction turning my consciousness off. I have no way of telling what, if anything, was going on while I was ‘under’. It might have been something outwith the limits of human perception, (which I believe much of the universe may be).
I should apologise for blundering in here uninvited, by the way! The discussion intrigued me, and it’s not often I get to debate things like this (sober, at any rate…)
Thanks for stimulating my atrophying brain!

By: Eclectic

Eclectic — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:00:46 +0000

Er, Nikki, I think that’s a redundant statement, not a contradiction in any way. “Scientific practitioners do their best not to be influenced by their humanity, but only as much as that is humanly possible…”. They are human, they do their best, obviously their best is only as good as their humanity permits. Thus “their best” and “as much as that is humanly possible” are two ways of saying basically the same thing.
There are minor semantic discrepancies regarding the best that a given individual can do vs. the best that any human can do, but that’s a matter of degree, not the direction of the goal.
(Apologies to all for bringing down the level of discourse of this excellent blog with this picayune point of grammar.)

By: Greta Christina

Greta Christina — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:59:11 +0000

“I don’t think its possible to filter out bias. Bias is inherent in the system – whether scientific or otherwise.”
In the short run, there’s real truth to this. But in the long run… the thing about scientific results is that they have to be replicable. One scientist can have their experiment skewed by bias in a hundred different ways… but when thousands of scientists read about it in the journals, and hundreds of them start bickering over whether the testing protocols were solid and whether the results really support the theory, and dozens of them try to replicate the experiment… that’s how bias tends, on the whole, to get filtered out in the long run.
(It’s one of the reasons scientists get so annoyed about the fact that the news reporting on science tends to focus on exciting new findings. “Scientific Consensus Finally Reached After Years Of Careful Testing And Debate” doesn’t make a very good headline, but it’s a better representation of how science really works.)
Of course there’s bias in science. I think very few scientists would argue that there isn’t. But the scientific method — the whole process, transparent testing protocols and peer review and repeating experiments and the whole shebang — is specifically designed to minimize that bias over time. More than any other method I can think of that humans have come up with to try to understand the world.
(BTW, if you’re interested, there’s a great article in the Skeptical Inquirer about how the current theory of ulcers replaced the old one — and how, while it often gets cited as an example of science being pig-headed and close-minded about new theories, it’s actually a beautiful example of science working the way it’s supposed to. It’s at http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-11/bacteria.html )

By: Greta Christina

Greta Christina — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:36:32 +0000

“I don’t believe it was offered as proof, but rather as evidence in support of a position already supported by a lot of other evidence and arguments.”
Yes. Exactly. Thank you, BF.
My experience of anesthesia *was* subjective, and by itself it doesn’t prove the non-existence of the soul, any more than Michael’s subjective experience of being saved by Jesus Christ (see comment to Part 3 of this piece) proves the existence of Jesus Christ. This piece wasn’t meant to be an argument — it was meant to be a personal narrative.
But since Nikki asked: I think there is a large body of evidence, growing every day, that selfhood and consciousness are essentially physiological phenomena. The fact that even relatively small changes changes to the brain — drugs, injury, illness, sleep-deprivation, etc. — can make such dramatic changes in a person’s consciousness and character and sense of self, are all evidence of that. My experience of anesthesia certainly isn’t the single most compelling piece of that body of evidence — but because it happened to me, it was the one I found impossible to ignore or rationalize. (And believe me, I tried. Like I said — I’ve come to my peace with this now, but at the time, this was an unbelievably upsetting conclusion.)
I do think there is still a tremendous amount we don’t know about what exactly consciousness and selfhood are and how the brain produces them. (I have a separate post brewing about that.) But since we have such a large amount of evidence and argument supporting the idea that it’s physical — and none at all that I know of supporting the idea that it’s metaphysical, other than the one I held onto for years, which was essentially “Well, it sure seems that way” — then in the absence of evidence or logical arguments countering the idea, I have to assume that it’s physical.

By: Buck Fuddy

Buck Fuddy — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 10:32:25 +0000

How is your non-experience under anaesthesia proof or disproof of anything?!

I don’t believe it was offered as proof, but rather as evidence in support of a position already supported by a lot of other evidence and arguments.
Furthermore, it is a repeatable experiment. If you don’t believe her subjective observation, you may try it yourself and see if you have an out of body experience or something. We’ll weight your testimony along with that of all the others who’ve tried it.
Personally, I was hoping for reincarnation. You know those mechanical breast pumps they sell wherever fine maternity supplies are sold? I was hoping I could come back as one of those. Or maybe a dildo. Sigh….

By: Nikki

Nikki — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 05:59:14 +0000

‘The scientific method, when followed correctly, is designed to correct for that as much as is humanly possible.’ – isn’t that a contradiction in terms? I read that to say: Scientific practitioners do their best not to be influenced by their humanity, but only as much as that is humanly possible…
I don’t think its possible to filter out bias. Bias is inherent in the system – whether scientific or otherwise.
(I did read your final installment. While it seems that was a deeply significant experience for you, it was a subjective experience. How is your non-experience under anaesthesia proof or disproof of anything?!)
Just flying the flag of perpetual doubt…

By: Layne Winklebleck

Layne Winklebleck — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 21:48:23 +0000

Hi again Greta.
Yes, I miss the good olâ days of Spectator, including our lunches and fun collaboration on all your great reviews. And what a treat now to discover now that you are blogging on the juicy metaphysical stuff that most interests me these days. I may have a comment or two more, but obviously I should wait, as you say, until you finish your story and I will also check out some of your previous writing on the subject first.
Layne