X-Message-Number: 7115
Subject: Re: Is there an AFTERLIFE???
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 11:31:20 -0600
From: Will Dye <>

In Cryonet Message #7109, Steven B. Harris wrote:

> When one of your brain cells dies, does something whispy which looks
> sort of like a neuron, but distorted and see-through, and with little
> blank holes for eyes, ascend into the beyond, perhaps going
> "ooooohhhhh!" in a tinny little voice?  

It's worth noting that the "ghost in the machine" paradigm is 
not a part of the Christian Bible.  It's rather like the image 
of Satan as a red fellow with a forked tail and a pitchfork -- 
an image conjured up quite some time later, with no direct 
Biblical support.  I'm not as sure, but I believe that the 
Jewish Torah also does not describe the soul in any terms 
that are directly supportive of the "wispy ghost" imagery.  

Mind you, a lot of people use the ghost paradigm, but their 
adherence to the idea is not backed by Scripture.  This 
suggests that those who value a close interpretation will be 
MORE likely to "give up the ghost" :-) paradigm once it 
becomes challenged by technological changes.  

Charles Swindall, a popular (and very conservative) radio 
minister, spoke recently about the inevitablity(!) of full 
and partial brain transplants.  He encouraged listeners to 
deal with the implications of new technologies WITHOUT FEAR.  
I only heard a "teaser" ad, so I don't know the details of 
his full speech.  

My guess is that most cryonicists regard increasing religosity 
as implying increasing opposition to cryonics, uploading, etc.  
But I have come to belive that, like most social phenomena, it 
isn't that simple.  Certainly the ideas have taken root first 
among those who regard religosity as a mistake (or a threat), 
but (1) how long that state will last, (2) how deep religious 
opposition is, and (3) why that opposition is there; are all 
issues that still elude my pitiful analysis.  I am convinced, 
however, that the universe is not adequately described by 
either the "ghost" or the "fundie bad, science good" models.  
When it's stated that way, people seem to agree, but we still 
keep slipping into the same old allergic reactions.  Sigh.

> The religious, Aristotelian
> view of brain and brain cell death is barely more credible 
> than this vision.

Only if your vision of the soul is restricted to little ghosts.  

Bottom line:  If someone rejects cyronics because they're 
afraid of what will happen to their ghost-soul, and if they 
value the Jewish Torah or Christian Bible as sources of 
information about the soul, then it should be worthwhile to 
respond that these books do not support the ghost imagery.  

--Will

P.S. If you're curious, the soul and the afterlife were always 
described in terms and images that were contemporary to the 
time of the writer.  This suggests that the descriptions 
were like parables: attempts to describe difficult ideas 
in familiar terms.  I suppose in modern times, the parables 
could vaguely include terms like "extended phenotype" and 
"quantum superstates", and even then the terms would be 
supplanted as times change.  There ARE some consistent 
features in all the descriptions, however, but I've 
digressed too much already...  


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=7115