franz kiekeben
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Philosophy
  • Publications
  • Contact

OUT-OF-BODY EXPERIENCES

2/23/2018

0 Comments

 
One common type of near-death experience is the out-of-body experience, which often involves seeing one’s own body from above. But even though they’re common, how good are they as evidence that a non-physical mind or spirit can actually exit the body?
​
Well, for one thing none of these experiences has, so far as I know, ever been scientifically confirmed as an actual out-of-body event. At best, the evidence has been inconclusive, as in the case of the widely-reported AWARE study. In addition, there are reasonable alternative explanations for such experiences (in part arising from the fact that the experiences occur in many different situations, such as during sensory deprivation or as a result of hallucinogenic drugs). A third consideration that isn’t as often discussed, though, is this: how a priori reasonable is the claim that these are actual out-of-body events? Or, to put it in Bayesian terms, what is its prior probability?

I would say it’s very low. The main reason is that there is good evidence that mental events are at least dependent on brain events, if not identical with them, as I've previously argued here. But there’s another reason. The experiences that people report are in a sense suspect. I don’t mean these people are lying; I’m sure the great majority, at least, really experience something. What I mean is that there are certain aspects of the experiences themselves that suggest they aren’t out-of-body events.

Consider the fact that people commonly report seeing their body as if they were floating above it. Is this what one would expect a non-physical mind that’s escaped the confines of the body to do? Well, for one thing, the non-physical mind doesn’t have any eyes. Moreover, it is invisible (no one has ever seen one of these spirits escape from its body while on the operating table), which means that light goes right through it. Thus, it cannot capture any light coming its way so as to form an image out of it. How then can it see anything? (The situation is much the same in the case of the invisible man from science fiction stories. Why isn’t he blind?)

One possible answer is that the floating mind has an experience that is as if it were seeing, just as we can have in a dream. But even though that’s a possibility, it’s not very plausible. The way we see things has a lot to do with how our eyes are structured, which explains among other things the range of wavelengths that are perceptible to us. Without the eyes as the organ that captures visual information, why would the floating mind have an experience that is exactly like that of a normally functioning human being? Is it just coincidence that the floating mind happens to capture the same wavelengths? That it cannot detect, say, ultraviolet light? And why do these floating minds have a field of vision that, again, is just like the kind we have with eyes? Why don’t they have, say, 360-degree vision? For that matter, why don’t they see outside their operating room (without actually moving through the walls, that is)? Or inside the bodies of the medical staff? After all, if their vision isn’t due to capturing light, why would the opacity of walls or skin make any difference?

Think how much more convincing the report of an out-of-body experience would be if the person claimed their experience was utterly unlike anything they’ve ever seen in waking life or even in a dream. Then we’d have to wonder how their minds could have made up such a strange idea. As it is, the likelihood that these really are out-of-body events seems rather slim.


[Originally published at Debunking Christianity]



0 Comments

DO WE HAVE FREE WILL? PART 4: NEITHER CAUSED NOR RANDOM

2/12/2018

0 Comments

 
So far, we have looked at three arguments against the existence of free will, each one based on a different type of determinism. But there is another reason for denying freedom of the will: the concept itself appears to make no sense. In this fourth and final part, I explain why.

Free will (in the standard libertarian sense of the term) means the ability to choose from among different possible courses of action: when you have the ability to act freely, you can either perform or not perform some given action. That’s why free will is incompatible with determinism. This does not mean that free will is the same thing as random behavior, however. Free actions are ones for which you can be held responsible. But if your actions were the result of chance events – similar to the decay of a radioactive atom – then they would not be up to you, and you would be no more responsible for them than you are for the weather. They would be events that happened to you rather than events you brought about.

Free actions, then, are neither completely caused nor random. And herein lies the problem. For to lack complete causation is to be random. The decay of a radioactive atom is a chance event, not because it lacks any cause, but because it is not entirely determined by the prior state of things.

Suppose you are asked to pick one of two cards. You pick the right one. If you are free, you could have picked the left one instead. We can imagine the universe being rewound to the moment before you chose – so that everything is exactly the same, both within you and without you – only this time around you pick the left one. But in that case what explains the difference? Well, there could be something (S1) that led you to pick the right card one time and something else (S2) that led you to pick the left the other time. Nevertheless, everything is exactly the same both times, so what could explain S1 influencing you the first time and S2 the second?  

Unless there is some difference to explain it, the choice must be random. And there is no difference! Therefore, the choice is random.

Some proponents of free will think they can escape this dilemma by claiming that we have reasons – which are neither caused nor random – for our choices. But again, if one time you accept reason R1 and the other time reason R2, what explains the difference? What makes you adopt one reason rather than the other? If under the exact same circumstances you can accept either R1 or R2, then which reason you end up with is itself ultimately random.

If there is only one possible course of action to you in any given situation, then your decisions are determined. If, on the other hand, you might either perform or not perform some action in any given situation, then your decisions are random. Either way, there is no free will. But of course, there are those who continue to believe in it while claiming that how it works is just a mystery. Anyone familiar with theological arguments has heard that before.
​

 [Originally published at Debunking Christianity]



0 Comments

    Archives

    April 2022
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014

    Categories

    All
    Atheism
    Creationism
    Determinism And Free Will
    Ethics
    Infinity
    Politics
    Presuppositionalism

    RSS Feed

Link to my author's page on Amazon