This dissertation's purpose is to test the hypothesis that beliefs in the possibility of post-mortem survival can be rationally held within the context of the contemporary scientific and philosophical environment. In terms of criteria of rationality, a basic evidentialism is assumed, such that propositions which are sufficiently supported by the available evidence can be rationally held. With regard to the compatibility with contemporary science and philosophy, it follows as a further criterion that the relevant evidence must be satisfactorily anchored within the framework of these traditions. The relevant evidence concerns two levels. First, the basic level of the conceptual coherence of afterlife beliefs is addressed, so that the logical possibility of post-mortem survival can be established. Secondly, the viability of the metaphysics which are implied in the support of the logical possibility (i.e. the metaphysics needed to actualize post-mortem survival) is defended, establishing the metaphysical possibility of post-mortem survival. At this stage, reductive physicalism, which is the only position that effectively undermines post-mortem survival, is criticized, and the problem of interaction which burdens several of the survival-enabling ontologies is addressed. As for the criterion of scientific compatibility, it is further shown that contemporary physics are compatible with the survival-enabling metaphysics, and that contemporary physics can be argued to provide a moderate positive relevance with regard to these positions. The conclusion drawn is that belief in the possibility of post-mortem survival is not only rationally permissible within the framework of contemporary science and philosophy, but also rationally obligatory, i.e. that this possibility cannot rationally be denied with regard to the reviewed evidence.

No description available.

Le physicalisme explique scientifiquement le problème de la conscience et peut se définir comme étant le problème résiduel de toutes les tentatives de réduction. Le physicalisme, dès lors, doit-il être toujours considéré comme la position métaphysique dominante et comme la méthodologie incontournable de toute théorie de la conscience ? Les tenants d’un physicalisme matérialiste radical réfutent le caractère irréductible du ressenti de conscience sur les processus neurobiolologiques. Cependant, éliminer la réalité idéelle du ressenti subjectif de l’expérience consciente semble n’aboutir qu’à l’échec du physicalisme dans sa vision matérialiste radicale car la seule analyse structurelle et perceptuelle des caractères phénoménaux d’un organisme ne peut traiter de manière explicite le caractère subjectif de l’expérience consciente. Les philosophes non réductionnistes et les dualistes postulent, donc, le dépassement du physicalisme à travers un néo-dualisme moderne. Dès lors, le ressenti de conscience doit-il être considéré comme un simple dépassement du physicalisme ou devons-nous le considérer comme étant au-delà du physicalisme ? La question essentielle qui se posera tout au long de notre thèse sur le ressenti de conscience est de savoir pourquoi le ressenti de conscience existe et pas seulement comment il existe ? Le pourquoi du ressenti de conscience nous entraine à travers le rôle imparti dans l’émergence de la conscience que représente le fossé explicatif physico-psychique sur ce que l’on nomme le « hard problem of consciousness ». / Physicalism scientifically explains the problem of consciousness and can be defined as the residual problem of all attempts of reduction. So, can physicalism always be considered as the supreme metaphysical stance and the unavoidable methodology of all theory of consciousness ? The supporters of a radical materialistic methodology deny the ireductible character of the perception of consciousness. So, they rule out any mental causality and any dualist vision of consciousness through the elimination of the perception of consciousness as a conscious experience and they argue that any physical effect is only terminated by the physical aspect.However, ruling out the ideal reality from the subjective perception seems only to result in the failure of physicalim in its radical materialistic vision, because the structural and perceptual of the phenomenal characters of an organism only cannot explicitly deal with the subjective character of a conscious experience.The non reductionist philosophers and the dualists assume the concept exceeding of physicalism through a modern neo-dualism. The basic issue of our dissertation is to know why the perception of consciousness exists and not only why it exists. The reasons of the perception of consciousness carries us, through the part played in the emergence of consciousness by the physico-psychic explanatory gap, to what is called "the hard problem of consciousness".So, in our dissertation, we shall try to rebut the conclusions of eliminativist physicalism and assume the emergence of the dualism of properties and a modern neo-dualism through the two key questions.

In this review study, we ask ourselves if decoherence theory can solve the problems of measurement in quantum mechanics. After an introduction to decoherence theory, we present the problem of preferred basis, the problem of non-observability of interference and the problem of definite outcomes. We present Zurek's theory of environment induced superselection rules and find that the problem of preferred basis and the problem of non-observability of interference can be solved through decoherence theory, but not the problem of outcomes, if we accept the eigenstate-eigenvalue link and the Born statistical interpretation. We reveal that these two concepts are essential in the Copenhagen interpretations of quantum mechanics, and give an account for von Neumann's and Wigner's conscious collapse interpretation as well as a detailed description of Bohr's and Heisenberg's interpretation. We discuss how Bohr's and Heisenberg's interpretation relates to decoherence with a special emphasis on the irreducibility of classical concepts as interpreted by Don Howard. During the discussion, we critique Wigner's use of the word "consciousness" as opposed to von Neumann's use, as well as Howard's decisively ontological approach to Bohr through an antithetical Kantian approach. We conclude by stating that decoherence theory cannot decisively solve the problem of definite outcomes of quantum mechanics, even when considering it in relation to the Copenhagen interpretation.