Debate on the Afterlife: Science or Speculation?

"Hoping to reach heaven? Dreaming of reincarnation? According to quantum theory, it's all impossible." - This was stated in an article on a well-known news site, boasting about "quantum mechanics."

Impressive scientific terms can surely draw in readers who aren't familiar with them and trust the experts. The article also mentions that these statements were made by a physicist, Dr. Sean Carroll. Isn't that impressive?

The headline made a cheap populist statement: "Sorry to disappoint: Science has determined there is no chance of life after death."

Well, science hasn't determined "there is no life after death", but the article certainly disappoints.

The authors relied on the average Israeli reader hearing "quantum mechanics" and "Doctor of Physics", getting the impression of a special scientific discovery, one that's just beyond understanding because they aren't a scientist...

The confused writing doesn't help clarify the matter: "Consciousness is composed of a series of atoms and electrons." - so it's quoted from the scientist. But what does this mean?

Well, the friendly doctor claims that human consciousness (our inner self) is merely a function of the brain. Since the brain is made from material composed of particles, the laws of matter apply to it.

But what proof does the doctor provide that human consciousness is made of particles?

Nothing, of course.

In Hebrew, we call such an act: begging the question. The doctor draws the target around the arrow; Dr. Carroll states that human consciousness (the soul) is material, and from this atheistic declaration, he concludes that the laws of physics apply to consciousness, and thus it does not exist after death...

As we know, the brain decays after death, its particles disperse, so by his view, "there is no life after death." Do you understand this man's twisted logic?

It’s similar to a child saying, "I can't see Hashem — so there is no Hashem." With such 'logic', the scientist would deny even gravity - which isn't directly visible.

The whole article is based on the false assertion that human consciousness is material - a statement that’s false from every scientific angle, as neuroscience hasn’t yet provided even the slightest scientific explanation for consciousness (qualia), nor has it come close to understanding human consciousness, or creating consciousness in technological research (I mean true artificial intelligence, not just preprogrammed imitation and display of human gestures).

In this context, it's important to remember that the influence of chemicals (drugs) on human behavior doesn’t explain what consciousness is or its source, just as understanding a TV or radio won’t explain where satellite broadcasts come from and who creates them.

The brain is undoubtedly the most sophisticated machine there is, but it’s just a machine - a vehicle. Who drives it exactly?

A computer is also a very complex machine, but it won't write questions for the "Ask the Rabbi" section on its own and browse an engagement site. For that, a person is needed to use the computer. The analogy: the brain doesn't choose - the spiritual consciousness does, which is why no material explanation for the existence of consciousness is possible.

Emotions and thoughts - these are expressions of the spirit within the machine. Material does not feel, it is automatic. There’s an experience of an observer in the brain, and who experiences the experience if not the soul?

For further reading: "Is Man a Machine or a Soul"

Is Your Green the Same as Mine?

Qualia: A Surprising Scientific Proof of the Existence of a Soul in Humans

Maimonides lived 800 years ago and described the brain as a very sophisticated machine:

"When you ponder the natural works of Hashem, His wisdom and mercy become clear to you through them, and the wisdom of the Holy One in creating living creatures, combining their organs and connecting them, step by step. An example of this is in the way organs move. The front part of the brain is very soft, its back is harder. The spinal cord's brain is even harder, and it gets harder as it stretches. Nerves are the tools of sensation and movement. Therefore, the nerves that control delicate senses, like the movement of the eyelid and cheek, grow from the brain. And the nerves needed for moving large organs come from the spinal cord's brain. But the thin nerve that originates from the brain – it is soft and cannot move an organ, so Hashem designed the body such that the nerve connects to a fiber, which connects to a muscle, making the nerve harder through ligaments, turning into a tendon, which connects to the bone and adheres to it. Thus the nerve can move the organ gradually. I have described this example because the wisdom of the Creator is clear in such wonders, in the benefits of the organs, and it is all calculated, clear and understandable to those who contemplate it with intelligence and insight" (from The Guide for the Perplexed, Part Three - Chapter 32, freely translated into simple Hebrew).

Geniuses like Maimonides were ahead of their time's sciences and described the material nature of the brain, that operates organs in meticulously planned connections. They knew there was no contradiction between the existence of the brain and the reality of consciousness, since consciousness (the soul) is what commands the brain and experiences sensory experiences through it. Without the soul, the brain would be an empty tool, like a person in a vegetative state.

* * *

Since it can't be attributed to ignorance, it's hard not to see Dr. Carroll's absolute statements as a kind of deception, a distraction meant to deceive. What's the point of such childish phrasing of assuming the conclusion by a physicist?

No reliable scientist would phrase things this way, nor present his personal beliefs as scientific facts.

The only explanation I see for Carroll's style is to achieve exactly what he succeeded in: media noise, drawing attention towards him - to publicize his obscured name. The fact is that the doctor didn’t present any new scientific research on consciousness or neuroscience, and no new physics data. All his claims are theoretical, lacking any empirical basis to lean on, yet they're presented as facts.

The article continues with the 'arguments' of the esteemed doctor:

"The possibility of life after death was actually examined by science, using quantum theory" - again a confused, scientifically meaningless statement. How could science check if there is existence for consciousness after death, if it cannot define the concept of consciousness, or create consciousness?

Tying quantum mechanics to the issue is irrelevant. This theory addresses, by its very definition, the behavior of particles. Yet again, no scientist has explained what consciousness is, and certainly hasn’t proven that consciousness is made of particles. So quantum mechanics doesn’t apply to consciousness.

I haven't yet encountered a philosopher or religious person who claims that human consciousness is made of particles. So where does this absolute declaration come from?

Such a statement might impress only on those never exposed to basic scientific concepts. One could equally phrase the foolish sentence: "Human consciousness is limited to gravitational force, as the brain has mass, and all mass is subject to gravity"... In short, word games.

If Dr. Carroll had presented evidence that consciousness is particle-based, or was even capable of offering a theoretical model for explaining consciousness, there would be something to discuss. But the doctor's cart is completely empty.

The doctor threw a smoke grenade, and misled his audience with high words and confused arguments to hide his personal beliefs.

It's sad to see how news sites in Israel have embraced Carroll's lies and tricks in their desire to promote an atheistic agenda at any cost. Ultimately, they shot themselves in the foot - because any reader who learns the concepts they talk about will understand, together with them, the reliability of sites making such false declarations.