Death Disrupted? | Episode 1701 | Closer To Truth

Religions offer life after death. Many people are skeptical. Evidence for post-mortem survival? Again, skeptics abound. Can death ever be defeated? Are these possible ways? Can we disrupt death? Featuring interviews with Julian Baggini, Max More, J.L. Schellenberg, and Sam Parnia.

Season 17, Episode 1 – #CloserToTruth

▶Register for free at for subscriber-only exclusives:

Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.

▶Free access to Closer to Truth’s library of 5,000 videos:

Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

#Death #Afterlife

(Visited 1 times, 1 visits today)

Related Videos

Comment (37)

  1. It is counterintuitive, but Max has to be right if there is no soul.
    Each copy of you, has to have the same continuity of inner awareness. Nothing less than "original".
    Imagine if you went to sleep, and while you are not conscious, someone makes one more identical physical copy of you.
    Which one is you is "you" in the morning? How can one copy be more "you" than the other, if they are identical?
    How can you explain that one of the identical copies is your continuation, and another one isn't, if both copies are physically identical?

  2. I find holes in the logic of a lot of his sophomoric interviewees. For example, the first guy it says that we are not the same people that we were at 10 or 20 years ago but that's not true. I may not be the same person in the sense that I've grown older wiser and learned more skills but I have the exact same feelings and thought that I did when I was 3 years old

  3. 12:30 the SHADE.

    Then again, I agree with Kuhn. If it is possible to coexist with your twin, it means the person in the other body isn't "you" even if they think they are. So it doesn't matter if you die just before the twin starts living. In that bet you're just agreeing to die so someone else who believes to be you can get a lot of money.

  4. Oh great, more educated idiots stating sophmoric ideas like they are gospel. My question what end? Stuck in a jar like a specimen of man's arrogance for future science? Or on a zip drive in some future " know it all's" desk drawer. My dad call people like these guys "sexual intellectuals" think about it Einstein. As for me I'm going to heaven by the grace of the creator of all things. God!

  5. Scientists, philosophers, physicists all discussing about the 'I' ego state vs the death of the physical body is a futile exercise in semantics. There is no definite answer to this, because death of the I is only death of the ego. The body? Well, its just a physical vehicle. Once science accepts that our lives are just consciousness expressing itself in many ways, it would make a quantum leap, the last one being in the 1920s.

  6. Your made of billions of living parts and predominantly living Proteins and DNA once you die the.damage is done and irreversible even if there were some part of consciousness surviving after death you sure you really want that?

    Imagine an incomplete part of you surviving after death existing on just how broken are you without the rest of you?

    More then likely if some part of you does exist after death it's no longer sane.

  7. Episode 10 of the Star Trek series "Picard" shows the transfer of 'self' from a living person into an android body. This dramatization allows one to imagine how it might be possible.

  8. I understand many say they see the light and images of angels after heart death or cardiac arrest. I myself had a small instance where I felt like there was a tunnel out, then it was just sleep. After 3 minutes of not breathing I was resucitated. It makes sense that it's more like the first stage of death but there is no healthy way of coming back from brain death. You might not even be able to describe what you experienced. Nothing magical happens after cardiac arrest though that is dream state caused by flood of endorphins

  9. His continuity theory is due to not understanding the purpose of our experience here on earth. Our core soul essence has nothing to do with age or time for that matter. It just is. And was and always will be. Age and time is only relevant here in the 3rd dimension. Only our human selves go through the aging process. The soul does not. It just exists. When it transitions, it transitions as a soul, not a human if that makes any sense. In other words, who we came in as, is who go out as. When I had a NDE I had all this knowledge and awareness of the ultimate truth of our existence shown or given to me. I remembered who I was as a soul and everything I had just gone through on earth seemed like it all happened in a short period of time and there was no judgment. I had an OBE at age 7 and a NDE/ADC at age 46.

  10. Duplicates or clones can not be the same person. Who a person is depends on there experiences throughout there life and they're conscience is a product of the environment they existed in while alive. Without the ability to upload or pass on ones conscience to the clone then the clone is merely a physical copy of the person but is not original person.

  11. Most of ur musings are like Wrestling……fake….I understand u when u talk about physics, theorems….but once u get into the metaphysical realm…..u are not different than those who get rich running the churches…..

  12. To me, the conversation with Max More supposes consciousness is a function of the brain, — it's "patterns" — as though our patterns of interpretation of reality, for instance, our interpretation of vision or touch, is stored inside us, in a vacuum. But rather, is it not the case that "who" we really are as conscious beings is the reality suspended in the matrix between our own singular body and the body of the larger world which we are a part and is also our own? I do not feel touch or see images somewhere inside me, independently of the "outer world," but I am rather defined by the feeling of the reaction of one body's skin and nervous system, between what is the "inside me" and "outside me." We see the world from the perspective of just beyond the surface of what is inside our bodies. We do not feel as though we see from inside our eyeballs, but more-so as though we live in the place between the surface of our "inner" and "outer" worlds, simultaneously. I think consciousness, is not something confined to an independent body in a vacuum, but it is the negotiation of forces between individual bodies within the collective of which all is a series of subsets.

  13. Every day signifies a mini life. When you wake at sunrise it's a new birth. As the day progresses it's a mini life. In the evening when the sun is going down is the most beautiful time of day. When the moon rises you fall asleep and dream. That in a nutshell is the cycle of life and death on a small scale. The four seasons are the same on a larger scale. Spring is like morning or new birth, summer is the noonday when the sun is high and you're in the prime of your life, evening is autumn the most beautiful time of the year, with the color of the changing leaves, evening the sky is the most beautiful purple, pink, fiery orange and blue. Then the silvery moon slowly rises in a blue velvet sky and you're at peace. You become drowsy, you close your eyes, and sleep sets in. It's winter at this stage where everything is covered in snow and frost. All of nature falls to sleep and rests. Then in the spring, the cycle begins again. Therefore death should not be feared. I believe death is misunderstood. Once death is understood, there is no more fear.

  14. Kind Sirs,
    There can't be life AFTER death only a change in reality. Living things Live. And dead is…well dead and dead things can't live. If they did …guess what…they'd be considered living. The realms at the change are where eternity lies. There time stops as well as everything else on this material construct. Even if what the brain goes through during our cell decay emits a reality construct unfamiliar to our imagination, yet can measure this out put of energy, wht we name it is more crucial than we think/feel. The images are in the same first four senses/dimensions in these moments. Obviously people who experience near death experiences are not dead. We don't know when these things are felt and the patients seem to feel like a lengthy process has been completed. I feel a life of skepticism 'breaks the balls' of the imagination. It's not tht you don't have one but, your always in the gray area. We can name 'that hell. If we wish. But Mr Skeptic there is no 'AFTERLIFE' only more 'LIFE AFTER' and the "after" being something endlesslysly fascinating. I feel we visit this realm in dreams. How bout you guys? I am Jewish and don't rationalize with the subject of if HaSHEM is real. I do however believe HE experiences EVERYTHING IN THE COSMOS ALL AT ONCE. Like us. The fabric of space is his spinal fluid and we swim in it….Feel me ? 🖖🙂

  15. I am a physicist and I will provide solid arguments that prove that consciousness cannot be generated by the brain (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). Many argue that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but it is possible to show that such hypothesis is inconsistent with our scientific knowledges. In fact, it is possible to show that all the examples of emergent properties consists of concepts used to describe how an external object appear to our conscious mind, and not how it is in itself, which means how the object is independently from our observation.
    Let me show this with an example of emergent property, such as the function of a biological organ, like the heart that has the function of pumping blood. Actually, the function of pumping blood is just an abstract concept through which we approximately describe what is really happening, that is billions of linked chemical reactions and moving molecules. In other words, the function of the heart is only a subjective description of the organ from a macroscopic point of view, which neglect many microscopic details. Besides, the concept of pumping is directly connected to the concepts of force and movement, which are fundamental physical properties. Therefore, the function of the heart is not a new real property, but only a conceptual model through which we approximately describe the reality; this means that the function of the heart is just an idea. Emergent properties are ideas conceived to describe or classify, according to arbitrary criteria and from an arbitrary point of view, certain processes or systems; emergent properties are intrinsically subjective, since they are conceptual models based on the arbitrary choice to focus on certain aspects of a system and neglet other aspects, such as microscopic structures and processes; emergent properties consist of ideas through which we describe how the external reality appears to our conscious mind: without a conscious mind, these ideas (= emergent properties) would not exist at all.

    Here comes my first argument: arbitrariness, subjectivity, classifications and approximate descriptions, imply the existence of a conscious mind, which can arbitrarily choose a specific point of view and focus on certain aspects while neglecting others. It is obvious that consciousness cannot be considered an emergent property of the physical reality, because consciousenss is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of any emergent property. We have then a logical contradiction. Nothing which presupposes the existence of consciousness can be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness.

    Here comes my second argument: our scientific knowledge shows that brain processes consist of sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes; since consciousness is not a property of ordinary elementary physical processes, then a succession of such processes cannot have cosciousness as a property. In fact we can break down the process and analyze it step by step, and in every step consciousness would be absent, so there would never be any consciousness during the entire sequence of elementary processes. It must be also understood that considering a group of elementary processes together as a whole is an arbitrary choice. In fact, according to the laws of physics, any number of elementary processes is totally equivalent. We could consider a group of one hundred elementary processes or ten thousand elementary processes, or any other number; this choice is arbitrary and not reducible to the laws of physics. However, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrary choices; therefore consciousness cannot be a property of a sequence of elementary processes as a whole, because such sequence as a whole is only an arbitrary and abstract concept that cannot exist independently of a conscious mind.

    Here comes my third argument: It should also be considered that brain processes consist of billions of sequences of elementary processes that take place in different points of the brain; if we attributed to these processes the property of consciousness, we would have to associate with the brain billions of different consciousnesses, that is billions of minds and personalities, each with its own self-awareness and will; this contradicts our direct experience, that is, our awareness of being a single person who is able to control the voluntary movements of his own body with his own will. If cerebral processes are analyzed taking into account the laws of physics, these processes do not identify any unity; this missing unit is the necessarily non-physical element (precisely because it is missing in the brain), the element that interprets the brain processes and generates a unitary conscious state, that is the human mind.

    Here comes my forth argument: Consciousness is characterized by the fact that self-awareness is an immediate intuition that cannot be broken down or fragmented into simpler elements. This characteristic of consciousness of presenting itself as a unitary and non-decomposable state, not fragmented into billions of personalities, does not correspond to the quantum description of brain processes, which instead consist of billions of sequences of elementary incoherent quantum processes. When someone claims that consciousness is a property of the brain, they are implicitly considering the brain as a whole, an entity with its own specific properties, other than the properties of the components. From the physical point of view, the brain is not a whole, because its quantum state is not a coherent state, as in the case of entangled systems; the very fact of speaking of "brain" rather than many cells that have different quantum states, is an arbitrary choice. This is an important aspect, because, as I have said, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness. So, if a system can be considered decomposable and considering it as a whole is an arbitrary choice, then it is inconsistent to assume that such a system can have or generate consciousness, since consciousness is a necessary precondition for the existence of any arbitrary choice. In other words, to regard consciousness as a property ofthe brain, we must first define what the brain is, and to do so we must rely only on the laws of physics, without introducing arbitrary notions extraneous to them; if this cannot be done, then it means that every property we attribute to the brain is not reducible to the laws of physics, and therefore such property would be nonphysical. Since the interactions between the quantum particles that make up the brain are ordinary interactions, it is not actually possible to define the brain based solely on the laws of physics. The only way to define the brain is to arbitrarily establish that a certain number of particles belong to it and others do not belong to it, but such arbitrariness is not admissible. In fact, the brain is not physically separated from the other organs of the body, with which it interacts, nor is it physically isolated from the external environment, just as it is not isolated from other brains, since we can communicate with other people, and to do so we use physical means, for example acoustic waves or electromagnetic waves (light). This necessary arbitrariness in defining what the brain is, is sufficient to demonstrate that consciousness is not reducible to the laws of physics. Besides, since the brain is an arbitrary concept, and consciousness is the necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness, consciousness cannot be a property of the brain. Based on these considerations, we can exclude that consciousness is generated by brain processes or is an emergent property of the brain. Marco Biagini

  16. Max is off the Mark, I feel. Robert is correct in saying that his 'I' would cease to exist. Max says this isn't a problem unless the experiences diverge greatly, and well duh; of course 10 exactly similar Maxes are going to have 10 radically different experiences. The second the first one becomes aware that he is the first replication that's going to create a different ego than the person created second, and so on.

    Maybe he is correct in thinking the personal 'I' doesn't matter, and that there's no soul attached. But maybe not. Robert is all about being certain and Max has accepted his fate.


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *