Hammock;
I see two very serious flaws in reasoning in the excerpt that you posted, which I will explain below.
hammock wrote:Never Say Die: Why We Can't Imagine Death; by Jesse Bering; SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN; Wednesday, October 22, 2008
The first flaw is with the word "imagine". When we try to imagine something, it is a self-directed activity, so we are working with the rational aspect of mind -- often referred to as the Ego.
Now the Ego processes information through the brain, and this information is mostly related to the five senses that help us to navigate the physical world. There is no reason, that I can think of, to assume that the Ego has any knowledge except that which is of the physical world. So asking it to imagine something that is not of the physical world in order to test reality, is a little silly. It would be like asking people, a thousand years ago, to imagine the giant sea monsters that live in the ocean to decide whether or not they actually exist. Most people were sure that sea monsters were not real, but giant squid do exist, and we are learning that there were other large sea creatures that existed in the recent past. Imagination is not a very good tool to use for testing reality.
It seems to me that the Eastern monks, who study the art of removing the "self" through meditation, and dealing with the sub/unconscious aspects of mind, are more likely to find valid answers to the question of existence after death. This is because there is no reason to assume that the rational mind, the Ego, exists after death, because it is designed to work with physical reality -- it would be moot after death.
The sub/unconscious aspects of mind, the SuperEgo, is an entirely different story and is reactionary -- not self directed. The unconscious mind has absolutely no understanding of time and space or cause and effect, and it clearly has little comprehension of physical reality. One could be justified in wondering if it is even in physical reality, or if it is nonlocal. Dr. Blanco broke down the unconscious mind into, I believe, five levels, but I suspect that there could be more. Now it is very possible that this aspect of mind, or at least some of the levels, could exist after death.
It is also worth noting that the SuperEgo is mostly activated by emotion, and that most of the paranormal and all religion and morality relate to emotion. So although we may not be able to "know" that we died, we may well be able to "feel" that we died. Is there any real difference?
The second flaw that I see in the reasoning in the article is that it assumes an either, or, position. We either know or don't know that we died, which is a very simplistic way of looking at it. Conscious life is very complex, so why do we assume that consciousness would be less complex after death? There is no evidence to support this idea, and a lot of evidence that refutes it. Dr. Ian Stevenson's work on reincarnation at the University of Virginia has been peer reviewed, and he has some very compelling evidence for the existence of reincarnation. The evidence that memory can transfer from death to another life is substantial in many of the cases. And yet, Dr. Stevenson does not appear to believe that all people reincarnate, and was looking for a cause.
There is also possession, which is different from reincarnation. There are near-death testimonies, and ghosts, who seem to be very different. There are people who have talked to dead relatives and friends, and a wealth of religious experiences. So I don't think that death is as simple as is implied here.
Gee