BEYOND DEATH
Empirical Evidence of the Human Soul

 

Introduction

Why prove that we have a soul?

A strange question at first glance, perhaps, as 'proving' things is much what human life is about. Why prove that gravity bends light, that the earth is round, that the sun is the centre of the solar system, for that matter? Because when we prove something to a satisfying degree, we treat that something as real. It becomes, at least to us, an inescapable aspect of reality. Something we must deal with, or face the consequences of. Something we cannot ignore.
Still, trying to empirically prove that we have a soul, well, that does sound kind of strange. Is that really what science is all about, is that not something that should be left to theology and the abstract reasoning of philosophers?

Some might feel that attempting to prove the existence of our soul is futile because it is ultimately impossible, because science is irreconcilable with such concepts as the spirit. Others might find the entire endeavour irrelevant as they are already convinced that they have a soul. Yet others may feel apprehensive that science, with its love for defining and categorising, may steal from the mystery of the soul. Perhaps in 'dissecting' our inner, eternal being, we will ultimately loose something of ourselves. There is no telling how people would react to 'undeniable scientific evidence' of the soul, especially considering our species' proficiency for full-blown denial.

Still, I think that, as a whole, most people would find comfort, whether needed or not, in scientific evidence of spirit. Science and its discoveries do after all affect our daily lives to an ever-increasing degree, as well as influencing the way we look at life. If the methods, evidence and logical reasoning of science should prove (or strongly indicate, as is the way of science) that there is such a thing as a spirit in us that continues to exist beyond death, this should in turn influence science itself, and our way of life. In short, such knowledge would change everything.

This is a bold statement to make, as the vast majority of the human population already seems to believe some sort in of a life after death. Most people believe they have a soul of some kind, though naturally there are many versions of what this means. And naturally there remain a significant few who believe that the soul is merely a delusion we have invented to deal with the fact that we will one day die, but as often as not, as they approach death, they find comfort in this 'delusion' themselves. But no matter how much we believe that we have a spirit, most of us believe in the physical world far more.

Our actions, opinions, thoughts and ambitions almost exclusively concern our lives here and now, whatever we feel will happen beyond death. Looking at the world today where so many of us are homeless, malnourished, subjected to war, illness and greed, where there is so much conflict between individuals, peoples and countries and where we seem completely unable to stop the destruction of our own environment, it seems that this faith is clearly not enough. If we truly believed that there was more to life than a few score years, that 'we' in some way would continue to exist beyond life on earth, would we not treat our planet and our fellow inhabitants with more compassion? Would we be able to pursue careers, acquire material wealth, harbour racism and bigotry and turn a blind eye to those less fortunate than us? What would be the point in this, if we truly believed we had a soul that would exist for eternity?

Personally, I believe that if science were not only to prove that that the soul was possible but even probable, matters spiritual would move up to the forefront among people's concerns, unlike today, when matters material seem to be rewarded with far more attention than those spiritual. Ask yourself the following: if you knew without any doubt that what you experience here on earth is only a portion of what your soul would ultimately experience, and that death is only the end or perhaps the broadening of your temporal personality, would you not lead your life differently?

If I am right about these reactions, then scientific evidence of spirit would be a good thing indeed. But to return to one of the previous objections, is it possible to prove the existence of spirit at all?

First one must remember that it is impossible to prove anything for certain in the world of science. A scientific fact is merely something that a) cannot be proved wrong and b) is very likely to be right. Take gravitation as an example. That an apple will fall to the ground when its attachment to the tree is severed for some reason, is a scientific fact. There is no reason why it should not, and plenty of empirical evidence to back up the assumption that it would. Not only do apples fall to the ground, but oranges, pears, coconuts and any other fruit in the same situation. Furthermore, and lending more gravity to the situation, any object that has no reason to be above ground level will fall. People, aeroplanes and meteorites also fall to the ground from time to time. Thus it is a scientific fact that the earth's gravity will cause things to fall to the ground by drawing things to its centre. This does not mean that this will always happen. One of these days, an apple might simply stop in mid air and just hang there. Just because something behaves a certain way given the same certain conditions a hundred million billion times does not prove that it will do so the next time. It only proves that it behaved so the last hundred million billion trial runs. Still, this seems to be a pretty good foundation to rest upon when making assumptions on future behaviour of apples and gravity, predicting the future being one of the main aims of science, from the pragmatic perspective. Or in other words, this constitutes pretty good proof that the force that we have named gravity exists, will behave in a predictable way, and should be given considerable practical consideration.

Another significant point is that where we can directly observe apples, people, aeroplanes and meteorites, we can not directly observe gravity, only its effect on us and on other observable objects. Gravity cannot be placed in a test-tube or divided into smaller components or in any other way poked, prodded or directly observed. Yet few people doubt that it exists. Actually the same can be said for apples, people etc. but we shall save this argument for the chapter on consciousness. It is worth noting also that to date, no one knows exactly what gravity is, only how it works.

So scientific facts are supported by empirical (observable and tangible) evidence. How then does one go about finding empirical evidence of the soul and its survival after death? Obviously, the soul itself is nothing we can measure directly with instruments or scientific methods. If the soul is to reach the status of scientific fact, it will have to be through the empirical evidence of its effects. To this end we need a hypothesis ("we have a soul and it survives beyond death"), a theory of what the soul is and ample evidence that the soul does indeed survive beyond death. Any evidence to the contrary must be dealt with and any alternative explanations, however esoteric, must be shown to be less likely than our favoured hypothesis, making the soul the sole alternative. And as science (mainly in the guise of classical physics and material reductionism) is traditionally opposed to the notion of the soul as it is felt that human action can ultimately be explained by genetic and environmental influence, we need also to prove first that the classical arguments against the soul are not valid. No simple task, but in the light of the considerable evidence gathered by respectable scientists using reliable methods, one I feel (or 'consider', as science is supposed to be more rational in arriving at its beliefs than religion) is far from impossible.

So exactly how does one go about proving that we have a soul and that it (we) survive beyond what we call death? A brief overview of the line of reasoning is in order.

First, we shall look at what we mean by such concepts as soul or spirit. We need to have a practical definition in order to know what to look for, where to look for it and how to interpret what we find. The definition I have arrived at is consciousness. Though I do not equate consciousness with spirit or soul, I believe (as does practically every philosopher throughout history making the similar argument) it is the best link we have to our soul or our true selves. As consciousness, or mind, is a far from fully understood phenomena, I have also dedicated one chapter for discussion of a few basics. From this point on, chapters 3 - 8, we will deal with different research into the phenomena relevant to our enquiry.

In chapter 3 we examine whether there is a link between mind and matter, as such a link must be shown if spirit is to be proven. If we cannot show that a "non-material" force such as mind, consciousness, spirit can influence the material world, we will not have disproved the basic argument against the soul. For there to be any point with the human soul, whatever it ultimately is or consists of, it must be able to influence the human being. If we fail to prove the mind-over-matter link, our entire line of reasoning might prove moot. As the logically disposed reader will have already concluded, I consider there to be ample proof of such a connection, as this book does not finish with chapter 3.

Having established the crucial mind-matter connection, we will look into the connection between life and consciousness (chapter 4). In order to do this, we will look into the ancient art of healing as examined in the modern laboratory environment. What is the link between consciousness and life? Is there an animating quality to consciousness which separates living matter from dead? After all, a living body contains the exact same amount of atoms as a dead one (as far as we can tell). What then is the difference between life and death, and if consciousness is that difference, does it go anywhere or merely disperse?

Following our discourse into healing and life-force, we shall explore the mind-brain connection in chapter 5. Is it necessary to have a brain at all to have a form of consciousness? Here we will examine the evidence of 'mental activity' or consciousness in plants and in the cells of animals and humans, neither having neural networks corresponding to that of a brain. The conclusion being that not only is there evidence of consciousness at practically every level in the living organism, but also that a form of communication is taking place that does not require a neural network at all. In fact, that does not seem to require any direct connection whatsoever, working independently of time and distance as we recognise it.

These conclusions will lead us back to a re-examination of 'non-local consciousness' in chapter 6. Here more evidence will be presented supporting that we do indeed have access to a form of consciousness that can gather significant information beyond the normal parameters of locality in space and time. A form of consciousness that, at least in a sense, can exist outside of space and time. Perhaps even an eternal consciousness, or at least one that might exist beyond death. This raises the question of how life and consciousness are linked together, which is the topic of the next chapter.

Near death experiences with their out-of-body sensations are the topic of chapter 7. The notion that mind can separate itself from the body and roam about at will exists in practically every culture, and is practised by shamans and laymen alike. Evidence for such a separation of body and consciousness would be very supportive of spirit indeed, and such evidence will be examined here. Of particular interest are such experiences in which corroborative evidence supports the out of body experience and cases where the brain is "out cold", i.e. non-functional. As we shall see, there are now several documented cases that cannot be explained by material reductionism (by now a common theme in this book). Do these experiences constitute scientific proof that we survive death? Though this stands out as the most likely alternative, it is not the only one. In order to find conclusive evidence, we must now look for evidence beyond death itself.

The final chapter (8) of empirical evidence concerns physical and behavioural evidence of reincarnation. Here we shall see that there are thousands of cases where children seem privy to knowledge of previous lives they could not possibly have acquired in any ordinary way. They also show behavioural traits as well as a strong identification with the previous life. Most significantly, these children are born with birthmarks and birth-defects that correspond to wounds and other physical aspects of the person identified as the previous personality, when such a person can be located. The evidence in this chapter lends further credibility to the survival of consciousness/spirit and presents several challenges against the rival theory of "superpsi".

In chapter 9 we will construct a hypothesis of what soul/spirit/consciousness is, and how it relates to life and death, and to the many different accounts of afterlife. Finally, in chapter 10, we will ask ourselves what it all means, what the purpose of it all is. The central question of all philosophy and religion, as popular today as ever.

Though such philosophical questions and possible answers are both interesting and important, the purpose of the book remains to prove empirically that we have a soul. Again, this does not necessarily have to say more about the true nature of spirit than the falling of apples has to say about the true nature of gravity. I do not believe that we will ever be able to capture a soul in a laboratory test-tube, but as I pointed out before, scientific acknowledgement of life beyond death, how unlikely this may seem at the moment, would most certainly improve the quality and experience of life on earth.

Scientific method can provide valuable clues to our souls as it uncovers the effects of spirit on the world. I hope that an open-minded discussion into the nature of personality, consciousness and spirit will follow in the wake of this book, as well as further research. If this book should constitute pretty good proof that the force that we have named spirit exists, and that spirit might, at least in a sense, have some predictable qualities, perhaps it will be given the same considerable practical consideration as gravity. But if there is anything I have become certain of during the process of writing this book, it is that we must all uncover our own truths.

Life is, in a very real sense, for learning, and the more we learn the more we will advance in our spiritual voyage. I hope that this book will provide an incitement for all those who give spiritual matters little or no thought in their daily lives to move this activity onto their agenda, into the forefront of their consciousness. I also hope that those readers with a firm idea of what life and the afterlife are all about will keep an open mind towards the hypothesis presented here, even if it might not quite correspond to what they believe. This does not mean that my conclusions are correct, merely that considering alternative explanations to one's own is good practice for consciousness. But most of all, I hope that those readers who do not believe they have a soul because this is an unscientific notion will see that this is not the case. Because if the hypothesis presented here proves to be correct, these are the people who will have the most confusing experience beyond death.

Still, I am a realist and aware of the fact that one single book is not likely to change all that much. But once the notion has been presented and the evidence has become common knowledge, a shift in paradigm is inevitable. Such is the nature of scientific curiosity. Progress cannot be stopped and perhaps, for once, this will actually really mean progress.

A hoard of scientists and writers are currently presenting bold new ideas from their various disciplines and areas, and I have not really contributed that much, merely tied their findings together in order to prove something I think and feel is important. The praise should go to them, for they, unlike myself, might actually be risking something by researching the areas they are. Without them, and the empirical evidence they have uncovered, this book would be as impossible as pointless.

Why prove that we have a soul?
The proverbial mountain-climber claims to ascend mountains simply because "they are there", and I suppose that in a sense it was the same with me. I thought that maybe I could prove we have a soul, given the existing evidence, and once I got that idea into my head I had to at least give it a try. Did I reach the hypothesised peak or lose my scientific balance on some treacherous empirical foothold and fall into a logical crevice along the way? That is for you to decide.

And I promise to stay clear of literary metaphor until we are well past the often confusing path of the evidence.

 

tillbaka