Any person who is faced with the death of a loved one asks whether there is life after death? In our time, this issue is acquiring special urgency. If several centuries ago the answer to this question was obvious to everyone, now, after the period of atheism, its solution is more difficult. We cannot simply believe the hundreds of generations of our ancestors who, through personal experience, century after century, were convinced that a person has an immortal soul. We want to have facts. Moreover, the facts are scientific. From school they tried to convince us that there is no God, there is no immortal soul. At the same time, we were told that science says so. And we believed … Let us note that it was BELIEVED that there is no immortal soul, BELIEVED that science allegedly proved this, BELIEVED that there is no God. None of us have tried to figure out what impartial science says about the soul. We simply trusted certain authorities, without going into the details of their worldview, objectivity, and their interpretations of scientific facts.
And now, when the tragedy has happened, there is a conflict inside us:
We feel that the soul of the deceased is eternal, that it is alive, but on the other hand, old and instilled in us stereotypes that there is no soul, pull us into the abyss of despair. This struggle within us is very difficult and very exhausting. We want the truth!
So let's look at the question of the existence of the soul through a real, not ideologized, objective science. We will hear the opinion of real scientists on this issue, personally evaluate the logical calculations. It is not our BELIEVE in the existence or non-existence of the soul, but only KNOWLEDGE can extinguish this inner conflict, preserve our strength, give confidence, look at the tragedy from a different, real point of view.
The article will focus on Consciousness. We will analyze the question of Consciousness from the point of view of science: where is Consciousness in our body and can it end its life?
What is Consciousness?
First, about what Consciousness is in general. People have been thinking about this question throughout the history of mankind, but still cannot come to a final decision. We know only some properties, possibilities of consciousness. Consciousness is awareness of oneself, one's personality, it is a great analyzer of all our feelings, emotions, desires, plans. Consciousness is what sets us apart, what makes us feel ourselves not as objects, but as individuals. In other words, Consciousness miraculously reveals our fundamental existence. Consciousness is our awareness of our "I", but at the same time Consciousness is a great mystery. Consciousness has no dimensions, no form, no color, no smell, no taste, it cannot be touched or turned in the hands. Despite the fact that we know very little about consciousness, we know with absolute certainty that we have it.
One of the main questions of humanity is the question of the nature of this very Consciousness (soul, "I", ego). Materialism and idealism have diametrically opposed views on this issue. From the point of view of materialism, human Consciousness is a substrate of the brain, a product of matter, a product of biochemical processes, a special fusion of nerve cells. From the point of view of idealism, Consciousness is - the ego, "I", spirit, soul - an immaterial, invisible spiritualizing body, eternally existing, not dying energy. The subject always participates in the acts of consciousness, who, in fact, is aware of everything.
Promotional video:
If you are interested in purely religious ideas about the soul, then religion will not give any evidence of the existence of the soul. The doctrine of the soul is a dogma and is not subject to scientific proof.
There are absolutely no explanations, let alone evidence from materialists, who believe that they are impartial scientists (although this is far from the case).
But what about the majority of people who are equally far from religion, from philosophy, and from science too, imagine this Consciousness, soul, "I"? Let's ask ourselves the question, what is "I"?
Gender, name, profession and other role functions
The first thing that most comes to mind: "I am a man", "I am a woman (man)", "I am a businessman (turner, baker)", "I am Tanya (Katya, Alexey)", "I am a wife (husband, daughter) "and so on. These are, of course, amusing answers. Your individual, unique "I" cannot be defined by general concepts. There are a huge number of people in the world with the same characteristics, but they are not your "I". Half of them are women (men), but they are also not "I", people with the same professions seem to have their own, and not your "I", the same can be said about wives (husbands), people of different professions, social status, nationalities, religions, etc. No belonging to any group will explain to you what your individual "I" represents, because Consciousness is always personal. I am not qualities (qualities only belong to our "I"),after all, the qualities of one and the same person can change, but his "I" will remain unchanged.
Mental and physiological characteristics
Some say that their "I" is their reflexes, their behavior, their individual ideas and preferences, their psychological characteristics, etc.
In fact, it cannot be the core of the personality, which is called "I" Why? Because throughout life, behavior and perceptions and addictions, and even more so psychological characteristics, change. It cannot be said that if earlier these features were different, then it was not my "I".
Realizing this, some make the following argument: "I am my individual body." This is more interesting. Let us examine this assumption as well.
Everyone else from the school course on anatomy knows that the cells of our body are gradually renewed during life. The old die (apoptosis) and the new ones are born. Some cells (epithelium of the gastrointestinal tract) are completely renewed almost every day, but there are cells that go through their life cycle much longer. On average, all cells of the body are renewed every 5 years. If we consider "I" as a simple collection of human cells, then the result is absurd. It turns out that if a person lives, for example, 70 years. During this time, at least 10 times in a person all the cells in his body will change (i.e. 10 generations). Could this mean that not one person, but 10 different people lived their 70-year life? Isn't that pretty silly? We conclude that “I” cannot be a body, because the body is not permanent, but “I” is permanent.
This means that "I" can be neither the qualities of cells, nor their totality.
But here especially erudite ones give a counterargument: “Well, with bones and muscles it is clear, it really cannot be“I”, but there are nerve cells! And they are alone for life. Maybe "I" is the sum of nerve cells?"
Let's reflect on this issue together …
Does consciousness consist of nerve cells?
Materialism is used to decomposing the entire multidimensional world into mechanical components, “testing harmony with algebra” (AS Pushkin). The most naive fallacy of militant materialism in relation to personality is the idea that personality is a set of biological qualities. However, the combination of impersonal objects, whether they be atoms or neurons, cannot give rise to a personality and its core - "I".
How can this most complex “I”, feeling, capable of experiencing, love, be just the sum of specific cells of the body together with the ongoing biochemical and bioelectric processes? How can these processes form "I" ???
Provided that nerve cells made up our "I", then we would lose part of our "I" every day. With each dead cell, with each neuron, the "I" would become smaller and smaller. With the restoration of cells, it would increase in size.
Scientific research carried out in different countries of the world prove that nerve cells, like all other cells of the human body, are capable of regeneration (restoration). This is what the most serious international biological journal Nature writes: “Employees of the Californian Institute for Biological Research. Salk found that fully functional young cells are born in the brains of adult mammals that function on par with pre-existing neurons. Professor Frederick Gage and his colleagues also concluded that brain tissue renews fastest in physically active animals 1
This is confirmed by the publication in another authoritative, refereed biological journal - Science: “Over the past two years, researchers have established that nerve and brain cells are renewed, like others in the human body. The body is able to repair itself the disorders related to the nervous tract, "says scientist Helen M. Blon."
Thus, even with a complete change of all (including nerve) cells of the body, the “I” of a person remains the same, therefore, it does not belong to a constantly changing material body.
For some reason, in our time, it is so difficult to prove what was obvious and understandable to the ancients. The Roman Neoplatonist philosopher Plotinus, who still lived in the 3rd century, wrote: “It is absurd to assume that since none of the parts has life, life can be created by their totality, … besides, it is absolutely impossible that life produces a heap of parts, and that the mind generated that which is devoid of mind. If someone objects that this is not so, but in fact the soul is formed by atoms that come together, that is, indivisible bodies into parts, then he will be refuted by the fact that the atoms themselves only lie next to one another, not forming a living whole, for unity and joint feeling cannot come from bodies that are insensitive and incapable of uniting; but the soul feels itself”2.
“I” is the unchanging core of the personality, which includes many variables, but is not itself variable.
The skeptic may come up with one last desperate argument: "Could I be the brain?"
Is Consciousness a Product of Brain Activity? What does science say?
Many have heard the tale that our Consciousness is the activity of the brain at school. An unusually widespread idea is that the brain is, in fact, a person with his “I”. Most people think that it is the brain that perceives information from the outside world, processes it and decides how to act in each specific case, think that it is the brain that makes us alive, gives us personality. And the body is nothing more than a spacesuit that ensures the activity of the central nervous system.
But this tale has nothing to do with science. The brain is now deeply studied. The chemical composition, parts of the brain, the connections of these parts with human functions have been well studied for a long time. The cerebral organization of perception, attention, memory, speech has been studied. The functional blocks of the brain have been studied. A huge number of clinics and research centers have been studying the human brain for more than a hundred years, for which costly and efficient equipment has been developed. But, having opened any textbooks, monographs, scientific journals on neurophysiology or neuropsychology, you will not come across scientific data on the connection between the brain and Consciousness.
For people far from this area of knowledge, this seems surprising. In fact, there is nothing surprising in this. It's just that no one has ever discovered the connection between the brain and the very center of our personality, our "I". Of course, material scientists have always wanted this. Thousands of studies and millions of experiments have been carried out, many billions of dollars have been spent on this. The efforts of scientists were not in vain. Thanks to these studies, the departments of the brain themselves were discovered and studied, their connection with physiological processes was established, a lot was done to understand neurophysiological processes and phenomena, but the most important thing was not done. It was not possible to find in the brain the place that is our "I". It was not even possible, despite the extremely active work in this direction, to make a serious assumption about how the brain can be connected with our Consciousness.
Where did the assumption that Consciousness is in the brain come from? This assumption was put forward in the middle of the 18th century by the famous electrophysiologist Dubois-Reymond (1818-1896). In his outlook, Dubois-Reymond was one of the brightest representatives of the mechanistic trend. In one of his letters to his friend, he wrote that “only physical and chemical laws operate in the organism; if not everything can be explained with their help, then it is necessary, using physical and mathematical methods, either to find a way of their action, or to accept that there are new forces of matter, equal in value to physicochemical forces”3.
But another outstanding physiologist, Karl Friedrich Wilhelm Ludwig (Ludwig, 1816-1895), who in 1869-1895 headed the new Physiological Institute in Leipzig, which became the world's largest center in the field of experimental physiology, did not agree with him, who lived at the same time as Reimon. The founder of the scientific school, Ludwig wrote that none of the existing theories of nervous activity, including Dubois-Reymond's electrical theory of nerve currents, can say anything about how acts of sensation become possible due to the activity of nerves. Note that here we are not even talking about the most complex acts of consciousness, but about much simpler sensations. If there is no consciousness, then we cannot feel and sense anything.
Another major physiologist of the 19th century, the outstanding English neurophysiologist Sir Charles Scott Sherrington, Nobel laureate, said that if it is not clear how the psyche arises from the activity of the brain, then, naturally, it is just as little understood how it can exert any influence. on the behavior of a living being, which is controlled by the nervous system.
As a result, Dubois-Reymond himself came to the following conclusion: “How we realize - we do not know and will never know. And no matter how we delve into the jungle of intracerebral neurodynamics, we will not throw a bridge to the kingdom of consciousness. " Raymond came to a conclusion, disappointing for determinism, that it is impossible to explain Consciousness by material reasons. He admitted that "here the human mind encounters a 'world riddle' that it will never be able to solve" 4.
Professor of Moscow University, philosopher A. I. Vvedensky in 1914 formulated the law of "the absence of objective signs of animate". The meaning of this law is that the role of the psyche in the system of material processes of regulation of behavior is absolutely elusive and there is no conceivable bridge between the activity of the brain and the area of mental or mental phenomena, including Consciousness.
The largest experts in neurophysiology, Nobel Prize winners David Hubel and Torsten Wiesel recognized that in order to be able to assert the connection between the brain and Consciousness, it is necessary to understand what reads and decodes information that comes from the senses. Scientists have acknowledged that this cannot be done.
The most authoritative scientist, professor of Moscow State University Nikolai Kobozev showed in his monograph that neither cells, nor molecules, nor even atoms can be responsible for the processes of thinking and memory5.
There is an interesting and convincing evidence of the absence of a connection between Consciousness and the work of the brain, understandable even to people who are far from science. Here it is:
Suppose that "I" (Consciousness) is the result of the work of the brain. As neurophysiologists know exactly, a person can even live with one hemisphere of the brain. At the same time, he will have Consciousness. A person who lives only with the right hemisphere of the brain certainly has "I" (Consciousness). Accordingly, we can conclude that "I" is not in the left, absent, hemisphere. A person with a single functioning left hemisphere also has an “I”, therefore “I” is not in the right hemisphere, which the given person does not have. Consciousness remains regardless of which hemisphere is removed. This means that a person does not have a brain region responsible for Consciousness, neither in the left nor in the right hemisphere of the brain. We have to conclude that the presence of consciousness in a person is not associated with certain areas of the brain.
Professor, MD Voino-Yasenetsky describes: “I opened a huge abscess in a young wounded man (about 50 cubic cm, pus), which undoubtedly destroyed the entire left frontal lobe, and I did not observe any mental defects after this operation. I can say the same about another patient who was operated on for a huge cyst of the meninges. With a wide opening of the skull, I was surprised to see that almost all of the right half of it was empty, and the entire left hemisphere of the brain was compressed, almost impossible to distinguish it”6.
In 1940, Dr. Augustin Iturrica made a sensational statement at the Anthropological Society in Sucre, Bolivia. He and Dr. Ortiz took a long time to study the medical history of a 14-year-old boy, a patient at Dr. Ortiz's clinic. The teenager was there with a diagnosis of a brain tumor. The young man retained Consciousness until his death, complaining only of a headache. When, after his death, an autopsy was performed, the doctors were amazed: the entire cerebral mass was completely separated from the inner cavity of the cranium. A large abscess invaded the cerebellum and part of the brain. It remained completely incomprehensible how the sick boy's thinking was preserved.
The fact that consciousness exists independently of the brain is also supported by research recently conducted by Dutch physiologists under the direction of Pim van Lommel. The results of a large-scale experiment were published in the most authoritative biological journal "The Lancet". “Consciousness exists even after the brain has ceased to function. In other words, Consciousness "lives" by itself, absolutely independently. As for the brain, it is not thinking matter at all, but an organ, like any other, that performs strictly defined functions. It is very possible that thinking matter, even in principle, does not exist, said the head of the study, the famous scientist Pim van Lommel”7.
Another argument that is understandable for non-specialists is given by Professor V. F. Voino-Yasenetsky: “In the wars of ants that do not have a brain, intentionality is clearly revealed, and hence rationality, which is no different from human” 8. This is a truly amazing fact. Ants solve rather difficult problems of survival, building housing, providing themselves with food, i.e. have some intelligence, but have no brain at all. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
Neurophysiology does not stand still, but is one of the most dynamically developing sciences. Methods and scope of research speaks about the success of studying the brain. The functions, parts of the brain are being studied, its composition is being clarified in more and more detail. Despite the titanic work on the study of the brain, world science today is just as far from understanding what creativity, thinking, memory are and what is their connection with the brain itself.
What is the nature of Consciousness?
Having come to the understanding that there is no Consciousness inside the body, science makes natural conclusions about the immaterial nature of consciousness.
Academician P. K. Anokhin: “None of the 'mental' operations that we attribute to 'reason' have so far been directly connected with any part of the brain. If in principle we cannot understand how the mental arises as a result of the activity of the brain, then is it not more logical to think that the psyche is not at all a function of the brain in its essence, but represents the manifestation of some other - non-material spiritual forces? nine
At the end of the 20th century, the creator of quantum mechanics, Nobel Prize laureate E. Schrödinger wrote that the nature of the connection of some physical processes with subjective events (to which Consciousness belongs) lies “aside from science and beyond human understanding”.
The largest modern neurophysiologist, Nobel Prize laureate in medicine J. Eccles developed the idea that, based on the analysis of brain activity, it is impossible to find out the origin of mental phenomena, and this fact can easily be interpreted in the sense that the psyche is not a function of the brain at all. According to Eccles, neither physiology nor the theory of evolution can shed light on the origin and nature of consciousness, which is absolutely alien to all material processes in the universe. The spiritual world of a person and the world of physical realities, including the activity of the brain, are completely independent independent worlds that only interact and, to some extent, affect each other. He is echoed by such prominent specialists as Carl Lashley (American scientist, director of the Primate Biology Laboratory in Orange Park (Florida),who studied the mechanisms of the brain) and Harvard University doctor Edward Tolman.
With his colleague, the founder of modern neurosurgery, Wilder Penfield, who has performed more than 10,000 brain operations, Eccles wrote the book The Mystery of Man.10 In it, the authors state explicitly body ". “I can experimentally confirm,” Eccles writes, “that the workings of consciousness cannot be explained by the functioning of the brain. Consciousness exists independently of it from the outside."
Eccles is deeply convinced that consciousness cannot be the subject of scientific research. In his opinion, the emergence of consciousness, as well as the emergence of life, is the highest religious secret. In his report, the Nobel laureate relied on the conclusions of the book "Personality and the Brain", written jointly with the American philosopher and sociologist Karl Popper.
Wilder Penfield, as a result of many years of studying the activity of the brain, also came to the conclusion that "the energy of the mind is different from the energy of the brain's neural impulses."
Academician of the Academy of Medical Sciences of the Russian Federation, Director of the Scientific Research Institute of the Brain (RAMS of the Russian Federation), a world-renowned neurophysiologist, professor, doctor of medical sciences Natalya Petrovna Bekhtereva: “I first heard the hypothesis that the human brain only perceives thoughts from somewhere outside from the lips of the Nobel laureate, Professor John Eccles. Of course, then it seemed absurd to me. But then research carried out in our St. Petersburg Research Institute of the Brain confirmed that we cannot explain the mechanics of the creative process. The brain can only generate the simplest thoughts, such as how to turn the pages of a book you are reading or stir up sugar in a glass. And the creative process is a manifestation of a completely new quality. As a believer, I admit the participation of the Almighty in managing the thought process”12.
Science is gradually coming to the conclusion that the brain is not the source of thought and consciousness, but at most - their relay.
Professor S. Grof says about it this way: “Imagine that your TV set broke down and you called a TV technician who, twisting different knobs, set it up. It doesn't occur to you that all these stations are sitting in this box”13.
Back in 1956, an outstanding scientist-surgeon, Doctor of Medical Sciences, Professor V. F. Voino-Yasenetsky believed that our brain is not only not connected with Consciousness, but that it is not even capable of thinking independently, since the mental process is outside of it. In his book, Valentin Feliksovich argues that "the brain is not an organ of thought, feeling", and that "Spirit goes beyond the brain, determining its activity, and our whole being, when the brain works as a transmitter, receiving signals and transmitting them to the organs of the body." fourteen.
The same conclusions were reached by British researchers Peter Fenwick from the London Institute of Psychiatry and Sam Parnia from Southampton Central Hospital. They examined patients who came back to life after cardiac arrest, and found that some of them accurately recounted the content of conversations that the medical staff had while they were in a state of clinical death. Others gave an accurate description of the events that occurred during this time period. Sam Parnia argues that the brain, like any other organ of the human body, consists of cells and is not capable of thinking. However, it can function as a thought-detecting device, i.e. as an antenna with which it becomes possible to receive a signal from the outside. Scientists suggested that during clinical death, Consciousness acting independently of the brain uses it as a screen. Like a television receiver, which first receives the waves entering it, and then converts them into sound and image.
If we turn off the radio, this does not mean that the radio station stops broadcasting. That is, after the death of the physical body, Consciousness continues to live.
The fact of the continuation of the life of Consciousness after the death of the body is also confirmed by Academician of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, Director of the Research Institute of the Human Brain, Professor N. P. Bekhterev in his book "The Magic of the Brain and the Labyrinths of Life." In addition to discussing purely scientific issues, in this book the author also gives his personal experience of encountering posthumous phenomena.
Natalia Bekhtereva, talking about her meeting with the Bulgarian clairvoyant Vanga Dimitrova, quite definitely speaks about this in one of her interviews: “The example of Vanga absolutely convinced me that there is a phenomenon of contact with the dead”, and another quote from her book: “I cannot help but believe what I have heard and seen myself. A scientist has no right to reject facts (if he is a scientist!) Only because they do not fit into the dogma, worldview”12.
The first consistent description of posthumous life based on scientific observation was given by the Swedish scientist and naturalist Emmanuel Swedenborg. Then this problem was seriously studied by the famous psychiatrist Elizabeth Kubler Ross, the equally famous psychiatrist Raymond Moody, conscientious scientists academicians Oliver Lodge15,16, William Crookes17, Alfred Wallace, Alexander Butlerov, Professor Friedrich Myers18, American pediatrician Melvin Morse. Among the serious and systematic researchers of the question of dying, one should mention the professor of medicine at Emory University and the staff doctor at the Veterans' Hospital in Atlanta, Dr. Michael Sabom, the systematic study of the psychiatrist Kenneth Ring is also very valuable, the doctor of medicine, intensive care physician Moritz Roolings, our contemporary, thanatopsychologist A. A. Nalchajyan. The famous Soviet scientist, a prominent specialist in the field of thermodynamic processes, a corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Belarus Albert Veinik worked a lot on understanding this problem from the point of view of physics. A significant contribution to the study of the near-death experience was made by the world famous American psychologist of Czech origin, the founder of the transpersonal school of psychology, Dr. Stanislav Grof.
The variety of facts accumulated by science indisputably proves that after physical death, each of those living today inherits a different reality, preserving his Consciousness.
Despite the limitations of our ability to cognize this reality with the help of material means, today there are a number of its characteristics obtained through experiments and observations of scientists studying this problem.
These characteristics were listed by A. V. Mikheev, a researcher at the St. Petersburg State Electrotechnical University in his report at the international symposium "Life after death: from faith to knowledge" which was held on April 8-9, 2005 in St. Petersburg:
"1. There is a so-called "subtle body", which is the bearer of self-awareness, memory, emotions and "inner life" of a person. This body exists … after physical death, being its "parallel component" for the duration of the existence of the physical body, providing the above processes. The physical body is only a mediator for their manifestation on the physical (earthly) level.
2. The life of an individual does not end with current earthly death. Survival after death is a natural law for humans.
3. The next reality is divided into a large number of levels, differing in the frequency characteristics of their components.
4. The place of destination of a person during the posthumous transition is determined by his adjustment to a certain level, which is the sum total of his thoughts, feelings and actions during his life on Earth. Just as the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a chemical depends on its composition, in the same way, a person's posthumous destination is determined by the "composite characteristic" of his inner life.
5. The concepts of "Heaven and Hell" reflect two polarities, possible posthumous states.
6. In addition to such polar states, there are a number of intermediate ones. The choice of an adequate state is automatically determined by the mental and emotional "pattern" formed by a person during his earthly life. That is why negative emotions, violence, the desire for destruction and fanaticism, whatever they may be externally justified, in this respect are extremely destructive for the future fate of a person. This is a solid foundation for personal responsibility and adherence to ethical principles”19.
All of the above arguments just surprisingly coincide with the religious knowledge of all traditional religions. This is a reason to cast aside doubts and decide. Is not it?
Khasminsky Mikhail Igorevich
