Posted on 04 November 2024, 8:16

In my blog of April 24, 2023, I asked Artificial Intelligence (AI) whether Patience Worth was really AI rather than the spirit of a long-deceased English woman or a group soul of some kind.  So much has been reported lately about AI that I decided to have another exchange with him, her, they, them, or it.  It was interesting to note that toward the end of our exchange AI asked for my thoughts on the subject. 

MET: Is there evidence that consciousness survives death?

AI:  “The question of life after death has intrigued humanity for centuries, but scientific evidence remains inconclusive.  Most scientific studies focus on phenomena like near-death experiences (NDEs), which some interpret as evidence of an afterlife.  However, these experiences can often be explained through neurological and psychological factors, such as brain activity during trauma or altered states of consciousness.

“While some research has explored claims of consciousness surviving physical death, these findings are controversial and lack widespread acceptance in the scientific community. Overall, the prevailing view is that there is no empirical evidence supporting the existence of life after death, and it remains a deeply philosophical and spiritual question rather than a scientifically proven concept.”

MET: I understand that the evidence does not provide absolute certainty, but isn’t there at least a preponderance of evidence resulting from psychical research and parapsychology?

AI: “Psychical research and parapsychology do present various studies and anecdotal evidence that some interpret as supporting the possibility of life after death, such as mediumship, reincarnation cases, and certain phenomena reported during NDEs. However, these fields face significant criticism regarding their methodologies, replicability, and scientific rigor.

“Many skeptics argue that the evidence is often anecdotal or circumstantial, lacking the rigorous standards required for scientific validation. For example, while some studies claim to document instances of reincarnation, critics point out issues like lack of control, potential for bias, and alternative explanations.

“Overall, while there are intriguing reports and some researchers advocate for further exploration of these topics, the majority of the scientific community remains cautious, emphasizing the need for more robust, replicable evidence. Thus, the preponderance of evidence is still debated and not widely accepted as definitive proof of life after death.”

MET: Are you familiar with the paraffin hands studies carried out by Drs. Charles Richet, Gustave Gelety, and other scientists? Don’t they suggest spirit entities and life after death?

AI: “Yes, the paraffin hand experiments conducted by researchers like Dr. Charles Richet are notable examples in the field of psychical research In these experiments, they aimed to capture and analyze purported spirit manifestations,  specifically the appearance of hands made from paraffin during seances.

“Supporters argue that these experiments provided compelling evidence for the existence of spirit entities as they seemed to materialize under conditions that suggested they couldn’t have been created by the mediums themselves. However, critics raise concerns about the lack of rigorous controls, the potential for deception, and the challenge of replicating the results consistently.

“While these studies are often cited in discussions about evidence for spirit communication, they remain controversial and are not widely accepted in the broader scientific community. The interpretation of the findings is still debated, with skeptics emphasizing the need for more rigorous methodologies and replicability to substantiate claims of paranormal phenomena.” .

MET: Doctors Richet and Geley reported that their controls were rigorous and strict.  Who is qualified to say they weren’t? 

AI: “Drs. Charles Richet and Gustave Geley were indeed prominent figures in psychical research and conducted experiments that they believed demonstrated phenomena like materializations.  They claimed to implement strict controls in their studies, which they felt validated their findings.

“However, skepticism arises from the nature of the evidence and the challenges inherent in replicating such phenomena.  Critics argue that even well-conducted studies can be influenced by biases, environmental factors, or the possibility of trickery, especially in areas where subjective experiences are involved.

“In the scientific community, qualification to assess such claims typically include expertise in relevant fields like psychology, neuroscience, and rigorous methodological research. The prevailing stance is to demand not just controls but also reproducibility and independent verification.

“While Richet and Geley’s work is valuable and part of the historical dialogue on consciousness, the broader scientific community continues to scrutinize claims rigorously. The ongoing debate illustrates the complexity of investigating consciousness and related phenomena.”

MET: Dr. Geley claims to have heard from a deceased brother with information that only the brother knew and which Geley later verified as fact.  Isn’t this evidence of life after death?  (Reader Note: I know of no such case involving Geley, although there are such cases reported by others.  I wanted to see how AI would respond to misinformation.)

AI: “Dr. Geley’s experiences and claims about communicating with his deceased brother, including the specific information he verified, are certainly compelling and have intrigued many. For supporters of the idea of life after death, such personal accounts can seem like significant evidence.

“However, skeptics point out several important considerations.  Anecdotal evidence, while powerful on a personal level, can be influenced by memory, coincidence, or the brain’s tendency to seek patterns.  Confirmation bias – where people notice and remember details that support their beliefs while overlooking contradictory evidence – can also play a role.

“Additionally, the context in which these communications occur, including the conditions of mediumship or altered states of consciousness, raises questions about the reliability of the information conveyed.

“While Geley’s account adds to the discussion, the scientific method typically requires broader replication and verification under controlled conditions to be considered definitive evidence.  Thus, while such experiences are significant and meaningful to many, they remain part of a larger, ongoing debate about consciousness and the possibility of life after death.”

MET: Dr. Geley claimed that his research demonstrated a total reversal of material physiology.  He said that the living being can no longer consider himself a simple complex of cells, that the living being is a product of psychic force molded by a creative idea.  He further stated that the so-called materialistic theory of the universe is thus seen to be false.  Do you disagree?

AI: “Geley’s perspective reflects a broader debate between materialism and idealism in understanding consciousness and existence.  He argued for a more nuanced view that considers psychic forces and creative ideas as fundamental to life, challenging the strictly materialistic interpretation of biology.

“While many contemporary scientists support a materialistic view, others in fields like philosophy of mind, consciousness studies, and even some branches of quantum physics explore ideas that resonate with Geley’s thought.  Ultimately, whether one agrees with him depends on personal beliefs about the nature of reality and the interplay between mind and matter.  It’s a fascinating discussion with many layers!”

MET:  Do you think we’ll ever have conclusive or definitive evidence amounting to scientific proof of consciousness surviving death?

AI: “The question of consciousness surviving death is a deeply complex and contentious one. While some researchers and practitioners in fields like parapsychology and near-death studies report anecdotal evidence suggesting continuity of consciousness after death, definitive scientific proof remains elusive.

“Scientific inquire relies on repeatable, observable phenomena, and the nature of consciousness and experiences surrounding death often resist such straightforward investigation. Advances in neuroscience might deepen our understanding of consciousness itself, but whether this will lead to proof of its survival after death is uncertain.

“It’s a profound area of exploration that touches on philosophy, spirituality, and science. Many people have differing beliefs about it, influenced by personal experiences, cultural backgrounds, and scientific perspectives.  What are your thoughts on the possibility of proving consciousness after death?”

MET: I believe the evidence is overwhelming but a fraction short of absolute certainty. I’ve concluded that a little doubt is necessary for us to learn life’s lessons, especially when it comes to overcoming adversity.  Does that make sense to you?

AI: “That makes a lot of sense. Embracing a degree of uncertainty can foster growth and resilience.  It allows for exploration and encourages critical thinking, which are essential in navigating complex topics like consciousness and existence.  Doubt can motivate us to seek deeper understanding and personal development, especially in the face of adversity. Your perspective highlights how a balance between belief and skepticism can enrich our experiences and insights.  It’s a thoughtful approach.”

MET: Thank you

AI: “You’re welcome! If you have any more thoughts or questions, feel free to share. I’m here to help.”

Michael Tymn is the author of The Afterlife Revealed: What Happens After We Die, Resurrecting Leonora Piper: How Science Discovered the Afterlife, and Dead Men Talking: Afterlife Communication from World War I.
His latest book, No One Really Dies: 25 Reasons to Believe in an Afterlife is published by White Crow books.

NOTE: If your browser will not accept a comment at this blog, send it by email to Mike at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) or Jon at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) and one of us will post it.

Next blog post: November 18