In my blog of April 24, 2023, I asked Artificial Intelligence (AI) whether Patience Worth was really AI rather than the spirit of a long-deceased English woman or a group soul of some kind. So much has been reported lately about AI that I decided to have another exchange with him, her, they, them, or it. It was interesting to note that toward the end of our exchange AI asked for my thoughts on the subject.
MET: Is there evidence that consciousness survives death?
AI: “The question of life after death has intrigued humanity for centuries, but scientific evidence remains inconclusive. Most scientific studies focus on phenomena like near-death experiences (NDEs), which some interpret as evidence of an afterlife. However, these experiences can often be explained through neurological and psychological factors, such as brain activity during trauma or altered states of consciousness.
“While some research has explored claims of consciousness surviving physical death, these findings are controversial and lack widespread acceptance in the scientific community. Overall, the prevailing view is that there is no empirical evidence supporting the existence of life after death, and it remains a deeply philosophical and spiritual question rather than a scientifically proven concept.”
MET: I understand that the evidence does not provide absolute certainty, but isn’t there at least a preponderance of evidence resulting from psychical research and parapsychology?
AI: “Psychical research and parapsychology do present various studies and anecdotal evidence that some interpret as supporting the possibility of life after death, such as mediumship, reincarnation cases, and certain phenomena reported during NDEs. However, these fields face significant criticism regarding their methodologies, replicability, and scientific rigor.
“Many skeptics argue that the evidence is often anecdotal or circumstantial, lacking the rigorous standards required for scientific validation. For example, while some studies claim to document instances of reincarnation, critics point out issues like lack of control, potential for bias, and alternative explanations.
“Overall, while there are intriguing reports and some researchers advocate for further exploration of these topics, the majority of the scientific community remains cautious, emphasizing the need for more robust, replicable evidence. Thus, the preponderance of evidence is still debated and not widely accepted as definitive proof of life after death.”
MET: Are you familiar with the paraffin hands studies carried out by Drs. Charles Richet, Gustave Gelety, and other scientists? Don’t they suggest spirit entities and life after death?
AI: “Yes, the paraffin hand experiments conducted by researchers like Dr. Charles Richet are notable examples in the field of psychical research In these experiments, they aimed to capture and analyze purported spirit manifestations, specifically the appearance of hands made from paraffin during seances.
“Supporters argue that these experiments provided compelling evidence for the existence of spirit entities as they seemed to materialize under conditions that suggested they couldn’t have been created by the mediums themselves. However, critics raise concerns about the lack of rigorous controls, the potential for deception, and the challenge of replicating the results consistently.
“While these studies are often cited in discussions about evidence for spirit communication, they remain controversial and are not widely accepted in the broader scientific community. The interpretation of the findings is still debated, with skeptics emphasizing the need for more rigorous methodologies and replicability to substantiate claims of paranormal phenomena.” .
MET: Doctors Richet and Geley reported that their controls were rigorous and strict. Who is qualified to say they weren’t?
AI: “Drs. Charles Richet and Gustave Geley were indeed prominent figures in psychical research and conducted experiments that they believed demonstrated phenomena like materializations. They claimed to implement strict controls in their studies, which they felt validated their findings.
“However, skepticism arises from the nature of the evidence and the challenges inherent in replicating such phenomena. Critics argue that even well-conducted studies can be influenced by biases, environmental factors, or the possibility of trickery, especially in areas where subjective experiences are involved.
“In the scientific community, qualification to assess such claims typically include expertise in relevant fields like psychology, neuroscience, and rigorous methodological research. The prevailing stance is to demand not just controls but also reproducibility and independent verification.
“While Richet and Geley’s work is valuable and part of the historical dialogue on consciousness, the broader scientific community continues to scrutinize claims rigorously. The ongoing debate illustrates the complexity of investigating consciousness and related phenomena.”
MET: Dr. Geley claims to have heard from a deceased brother with information that only the brother knew and which Geley later verified as fact. Isn’t this evidence of life after death? (Reader Note: I know of no such case involving Geley, although there are such cases reported by others. I wanted to see how AI would respond to misinformation.)
AI: “Dr. Geley’s experiences and claims about communicating with his deceased brother, including the specific information he verified, are certainly compelling and have intrigued many. For supporters of the idea of life after death, such personal accounts can seem like significant evidence.
Read More – Artificial Intelligence Gives Answers on Life After Death
Leave a Reply