The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Post Reply
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Post by evolution »

Belindi wrote: September 27th, 2020, 3:42 am
evolution wrote: September 26th, 2020, 5:47 pm

I think you have completely and utterly MISSED or MISUNDERSTOOD the point that I am making here.
Is your quarrel with my use of possessive pronouns?
I have no idea what a 'pronoun' is, let alone what a 'possessive pronoun' is. In fact I do not even know what the word 'noun' means.

Anyway, if the word 'possessive' is in relation to the words 'your' or 'my' and how those two words imply ownership, or possessiveness, then yes.

When the words 'yourself' or 'myself' are used, then there is an implication that there is one who owns, or possesses, a 'self'.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Post by Belindi »

evolution wrote: October 4th, 2020, 5:08 am
Belindi wrote: September 27th, 2020, 3:42 am

Is your quarrel with my use of possessive pronouns?
I have no idea what a 'pronoun' is, let alone what a 'possessive pronoun' is. In fact I do not even know what the word 'noun' means.

Anyway, if the word 'possessive' is in relation to the words 'your' or 'my' and how those two words imply ownership, or possessiveness, then yes.

When the words 'yourself' or 'myself' are used, then there is an implication that there is one who owns, or possesses, a 'self'.
Is it a matter of pride to be ignorant?
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Post by evolution »

Belindi wrote: October 4th, 2020, 5:21 am
evolution wrote: October 4th, 2020, 5:08 am

I have no idea what a 'pronoun' is, let alone what a 'possessive pronoun' is. In fact I do not even know what the word 'noun' means.

Anyway, if the word 'possessive' is in relation to the words 'your' or 'my' and how those two words imply ownership, or possessiveness, then yes.

When the words 'yourself' or 'myself' are used, then there is an implication that there is one who owns, or possesses, a 'self'.
Is it a matter of pride to be ignorant?
No.

It is a matter of PROVING that things can still be done without ever necessarily learning nor knowing other things, which were thought to be necessary to learn and know, first.

See, if my writings can show and prove just how simple and easy a Truly peaceful 'world', for EVERY one, can be created and will soon become reality, without ever learning what 'nouns', 'verbs', 'pronouns', et cetera are, then this will help in PROVING what is Truly NECESSARY for living (in) a Truly wanted and desired life.

I do NOT do 'pride'. I instead do 'what is right'. There is NO 'pride' in just doing what is, naturally, right, in life.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7066
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Post by Sculptor1 »

evolution wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 9:56 am
Sculptor1 wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 8:38 am
FFS.
Answer the bloody question.


They are both questions.
Why are you wriggling?
I am NOT 'wriggling'. I am CLARIFYING.
Sculptor1 wrote: October 2nd, 2020, 8:38 am What the **** is your objection to "self"?
I have NO objection to 'self'. AND, I NEVER have.

Are you ASSUMING I have?

If yes, then WHY?
Jog on!
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7066
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Post by Sculptor1 »

evolution wrote: October 4th, 2020, 5:38 am
Belindi wrote: October 4th, 2020, 5:21 am
Is it a matter of pride to be ignorant?
No.

It is a matter of PROVING that things can still be done without ever necessarily learning nor knowing other things, which were thought to be necessary to learn and know, first.
word salad

See, if my writings can show and prove just how simple and easy a Truly peaceful 'world', for EVERY one, can be created and will soon become reality, without ever learning what 'nouns', 'verbs', 'pronouns', et cetera are, then this will help in PROVING what is Truly NECESSARY for living (in) a Truly wanted and desired life.
with garnish

I do NOT do 'pride'. I instead do 'what is right'. There is NO 'pride' in just doing what is, naturally, right, in life.
and on a side dish of confusion
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Post by Belindi »

evolution wrote: October 4th, 2020, 5:38 am
Belindi wrote: October 4th, 2020, 5:21 am
Is it a matter of pride to be ignorant?
No.

It is a matter of PROVING that things can still be done without ever necessarily learning nor knowing other things, which were thought to be necessary to learn and know, first.

See, if my writings can show and prove just how simple and easy a Truly peaceful 'world', for EVERY one, can be created and will soon become reality, without ever learning what 'nouns', 'verbs', 'pronouns', et cetera are, then this will help in PROVING what is Truly NECESSARY for living (in) a Truly wanted and desired life.

I do NOT do 'pride'. I instead do 'what is right'. There is NO 'pride' in just doing what is, naturally, right, in life.
In that case, why mention you don't know what pronouns are?
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Post by evolution »

Belindi wrote: October 4th, 2020, 6:04 am
evolution wrote: October 4th, 2020, 5:38 am

No.

It is a matter of PROVING that things can still be done without ever necessarily learning nor knowing other things, which were thought to be necessary to learn and know, first.

See, if my writings can show and prove just how simple and easy a Truly peaceful 'world', for EVERY one, can be created and will soon become reality, without ever learning what 'nouns', 'verbs', 'pronouns', et cetera are, then this will help in PROVING what is Truly NECESSARY for living (in) a Truly wanted and desired life.

I do NOT do 'pride'. I instead do 'what is right'. There is NO 'pride' in just doing what is, naturally, right, in life.
In that case, why mention you don't know what pronouns are?
BECAUSE you asked me a clarifying question in regards to 'pronouns'. I was just making it CLEAR that I would NOT be able to answer your clarifying question here, properly nor correctly, because I do not yet know what pronouns are. That is all.
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Post by Count Lucanor »

evolution wrote: October 3rd, 2020, 9:15 pm

Also, I ONLY said your statements are WRONG, when you wrote what you were ASSUMING I meant, in what I wrote, which was OBVIOUSLY PLAINLY WRONG.
Unfortunately, what YOU thought that was WRONG was only what you ASSUMED I had meant, not what I actually meant, because only I know what I meant. By the same token you use, I'm entitled to think and say that you're OBVIOUSLY PLAINLY WRONG. Unless you thought that one can say something is OBVIOUSLY PLAINLY WRONG from any perspective independent of yours, right from the moment it is said, by its own internal logic. But you confessed you don't debate, so in any engagement with you it will not be clarified. You can only present your own personal perspective, to what appears to yourself to be true or false, and cannot move beyond this:
what I am saying is actually True, Right, nor Correct, but ONLY what is appears to be true, right, and correct, from what I have previously observed/experienced.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Post by evolution »

Count Lucanor wrote: October 4th, 2020, 1:45 pm
evolution wrote: October 3rd, 2020, 9:15 pm

Also, I ONLY said your statements are WRONG, when you wrote what you were ASSUMING I meant, in what I wrote, which was OBVIOUSLY PLAINLY WRONG.
Unfortunately, what YOU thought that was WRONG was only what you ASSUMED I had meant, not what I actually meant, because only I know what I meant.
Okay.

Let us take a GOOD LOOK INTO this, and then SEE what transpires.

I wrote:
But 'Life', Itself, NEVER 'ends', to me.

You wrote:
But that 'to me' closes the door to any rational debate.

I then asked you two clarifying questions and informed you of:
If you said that, are you then NOT at all OPEN to absolutely ANY thing different than that?

If you are NOT OPEN, then WHY NOT?

1. I do NOT do 'debate'.
2. Saying, 'to me', means, to me, the EXACT OPPOSITE of 'closing'.

Saying, 'to me', means being COMPLETELY OPEN, as I am only expressing the views, from my point of view only. And what is obvious is that my personal point of view/s are NOT necessarily the True, Right, and Correct one/s.


You then wrote:
Your phrase 'to me' is meant to emphasize that a particular statement does not leave the domain of your own subjective experience and beliefs.

So, you made it CLEAR what you actually meant. I then proceeded to inform you:
This is what my phrase 'to me' means, 'to you'.

This is NOT what my phrase 'to me' meant to emphasize AT ALL.


I wrote that so you were CLEAR what I actually meant.

I also informed you of:
Do not forget that I wrote 'it' so I KNOW EXACTLY what was MEANT TO BE EMPHASIZED. Please remember that you are only making ASSUMPTIONS here.

Now, if what you wrote above in the first quote above is even remotely correct, then what do you propose is the part where I am, supposedly; "only ASSUMING what you meant"?

And, if that is WRONG, then what did you ACTUALLY MEAN.

We can also do this another way. You wrote:
Your phrase 'to me' is meant to emphasize that a particular statement does not leave the domain of your own subjective experience and beliefs.

Now, if you did NOT actually mean that my phrase 'to me' is MEANT to emphasize that a particular statement does not leave the domain of your own subjective experience and beliefs. Then what did you ACTUALLY MEAN?
Count Lucanor wrote: October 4th, 2020, 1:45 pm By the same token you use, I'm entitled to think and say that you're OBVIOUSLY PLAINLY WRONG.
As ALREADY explained to you; ONLY AFTER what the "other" actually means has been CLARIFIED.

I ALREADY asked you some CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, which you CLEARLY CLARIFIED, (as EVIDENCED and PROVEN above). Therefore, I informed you that the ASSUMPTIONS, which you were making about what I was actually meaning, in what I wrote, were WRONG.

By the way, this, by you so called, 'entitlement' is available to EVERY human being.

Count Lucanor wrote: October 4th, 2020, 1:45 pm Unless you thought that one can say something is OBVIOUSLY PLAINLY WRONG from any perspective independent of yours, right from the moment it is said, by its own internal logic.
I was NOT saying this AT ALL.
Count Lucanor wrote: October 4th, 2020, 1:45 pm But you confessed you don't debate, so in any engagement with you it will not be clarified.
I am NOT sure how you define the word 'debate', but I have, obviously, NEVER confessed to what you have said here at all.

Also, because you NEVER clarified with me about what I actually mean when I use the word 'debate', then EVERY you say in regards to that will just be an ASSUMPTION of yours ONLY.
Count Lucanor wrote: October 4th, 2020, 1:45 pm You can only present your own personal perspective, to what appears to yourself to be true or false, and cannot move beyond this:
You have a VERY TWISTED and DISTORTED take on what I write, and actually mean.

Unless, of course, you do NOT mean what you say here.

Now, if you are going to be Truly Honest, then you WILL explain what you actually mean here.

Do you mean that you can only present your own personal perspective, to what appears to yourself to be true or false, and cannot move beyond this?

Because if this is what you actually mean, then you are COMPLETELY and UTTERLY TOTALLY WRONG, AGAIN.

If, however, you MEANT some thing else, then what did you ACTUALLY MEAN.

Oh, and do not forget, that you have NEVER actually CLARIFIED with me YET what I ACTUALLY MEANT, in regards to NOT 'doing debate'.
Count Lucanor wrote: October 4th, 2020, 1:45 pm
what I am saying is actually True, Right, nor Correct, but ONLY what is appears to be true, right, and correct, from what I have previously observed/experienced.
I think you may have MISSED or MISUNDERSTOOD when I have previously written: I CAN BACK UP and SUPPORT WHAT I WRITE, SAY, and CLAIM.

So, I can well and truly move beyond what I present. In fact I can keep moving forward and beyond. That is; if ANY one wants to challenge me and put me to the test
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Post by evolution »

Sculptor1 wrote: October 4th, 2020, 5:52 am
evolution wrote: October 4th, 2020, 5:38 am

No.

It is a matter of PROVING that things can still be done without ever necessarily learning nor knowing other things, which were thought to be necessary to learn and know, first.
word salad

See, if my writings can show and prove just how simple and easy a Truly peaceful 'world', for EVERY one, can be created and will soon become reality, without ever learning what 'nouns', 'verbs', 'pronouns', et cetera are, then this will help in PROVING what is Truly NECESSARY for living (in) a Truly wanted and desired life.
with garnish

I do NOT do 'pride'. I instead do 'what is right'. There is NO 'pride' in just doing what is, naturally, right, in life.
and on a side dish of confusion
What I say here would be "word salad, with garnish, and on a side dish of confusion", to 'you'. This is because you appear to NEVER even want to learn and 'try to' understand what I say. You appear to only base what others say on your own thinking and beliefs, and considering just how confused you are now, and how much more knowledge and understanding you have to learn and gain, in the times of when this is being written, then OBVIOUSLY what I write, in the way I write it now, would appear to you to be what you call "word salad".

But if this is how what I say actually appears to be, to you, then let us just leave it like this, correct?
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Post by Count Lucanor »

evolution wrote: October 4th, 2020, 7:46 pm You then wrote:
Your phrase 'to me' is meant to emphasize that a particular statement does not leave the domain of your own subjective experience and beliefs.

So, you made it CLEAR what you actually meant.
No. Again, that is what it appears to you as being meant by me. Since I am the only one knowing EXACTLY what I meant, I can tell you with confidence that you're plainly wrong. You are only making ASSUMPTIONS here.
evolution wrote: October 4th, 2020, 7:46 pm I then proceeded to inform you:
This is what my phrase 'to me' means, 'to you'.

It is very interesting that you think that you can inform someone about what is meant in something they say. Couldn't I do the same: inform you of what is meant in something you said?
evolution wrote: October 4th, 2020, 7:46 pm Now, if what you wrote above in the first quote above is even remotely correct, then what do you propose is the part where I am, supposedly; "only ASSUMING what you meant"?
In the part where you assume that I mean what you think I mean, despite the fact that you hold as true that only the owner of the statement knows exactly what it means.
evolution wrote: October 4th, 2020, 7:46 pm And, if that is WRONG, then what did you ACTUALLY MEAN.

We can also do this another way. You wrote:
Your phrase 'to me' is meant to emphasize that a particular statement does not leave the domain of your own subjective experience and beliefs.

Now, if you did NOT actually mean that my phrase 'to me' is MEANT to emphasize that a particular statement does not leave the domain of your own subjective experience and beliefs. Then what did you ACTUALLY MEAN?
It means to me exactly what I said as a clarification to your clarifying statements about what your previous statements meant. Of course, now you can take it to mean anything you want for you and make assumptions of what it might mean to me, but that as far as you will go.
evolution wrote: October 4th, 2020, 7:46 pm
Count Lucanor wrote: October 4th, 2020, 1:45 pm By the same token you use, I'm entitled to think and say that you're OBVIOUSLY PLAINLY WRONG.
As ALREADY explained to you; ONLY AFTER what the "other" actually means has been CLARIFIED.

I ALREADY asked you some CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, which you CLEARLY CLARIFIED, (as EVIDENCED and PROVEN above). Therefore, I informed you that the ASSUMPTIONS, which you were making about what I was actually meaning, in what I wrote, were WRONG.
And your further clarification of what you think means what I said in my own clarification gave me the opportunity to inform you that you made the wrong assumptions about what I wrote.
evolution wrote: October 4th, 2020, 7:46 pm
Count Lucanor wrote: October 4th, 2020, 1:45 pm Unless you thought that one can say something is OBVIOUSLY PLAINLY WRONG from any perspective independent of yours, right from the moment it is said, by its own internal logic.
I was NOT saying this AT ALL.
Whether you said it or not is kind of irrelevant, since what is meant in what you're saying it's only for you to know.
evolution wrote: October 4th, 2020, 7:46 pm
Count Lucanor wrote: October 4th, 2020, 1:45 pm But you confessed you don't debate, so in any engagement with you it will not be clarified.
I am NOT sure how you define the word 'debate', but I have, obviously, NEVER confessed to what you have said here at all.
evolution wrote:1. I do NOT do 'debate'.
evolution wrote: October 4th, 2020, 7:46 pm Also, because you NEVER clarified with me about what I actually mean when I use the word 'debate', then EVERY you say in regards to that will just be an ASSUMPTION of yours ONLY.
But given that I also mean something when I use the word debate, and you have not clarified that with me, then what you think I mean with the word debate will just be an ASSUMPTION of yours ONLY. You have your private meaning of the word and I have mine. Looks fair.
evolution wrote: October 4th, 2020, 7:46 pm
Count Lucanor wrote: October 4th, 2020, 1:45 pm You can only present your own personal perspective, to what appears to yourself to be true or false, and cannot move beyond this:
You have a VERY TWISTED and DISTORTED take on what I write, and actually mean.
That is from your own view only, of course.
evolution wrote: October 4th, 2020, 7:46 pm Do you mean that you can only present your own personal perspective, to what appears to yourself to be true or false, and cannot move beyond this?

Because if this is what you actually mean, then you are COMPLETELY and UTTERLY TOTALLY WRONG, AGAIN.
If it had that meaning, what could possibly we completely wrong with it?
evolution wrote: October 4th, 2020, 7:46 pm
Oh, and do not forget, that you have NEVER actually CLARIFIED with me YET what I ACTUALLY MEANT, in regards to NOT 'doing debate'.
Why would I need clarification? Does that mean that your statements do not clearly express their intended meaning when written down? In what moments they DO express their clear intended meaning?
evolution wrote: October 4th, 2020, 7:46 pm I think you may have MISSED or MISUNDERSTOOD when I have previously written: I CAN BACK UP and SUPPORT WHAT I WRITE, SAY, and CLAIM.
Since you have confessed that what you write will necessarily require another round of clarification before it can be dealt with properly, and that you believe only you know the key to its true meaning, I can safely assume that rather than being missed or misunderstood, your statements are written to mislead.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
User avatar
Krisaaaaeeeeeeee
New Trial Member
Posts: 3
Joined: November 27th, 2020, 2:28 pm

Re: The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Post by Krisaaaaeeeeeeee »

BigQuestioner wrote: August 26th, 2020, 7:44 am Denigrate the author, the journal, the reviewers of the journal, the author's affiliated university, and scholarly publication in general, but don't even bother to read the article close enough to understand what is being claimed (or get the university correct). That is, attack the messenger and his facilitators but not message, at least not the real message but instead, due to a lack of understanding, attack a straw man. That's how I would characterize many of the responses here.

Anyway, I'm not interested in debating the reality of the natural afterlife. I've already "been there, done that" on other forums often enough. Moreover, hundreds of psychology and philosophy scholars have now reviewed the journal article I reference and have yet to find any flaws in my theories--i.e., in their logical deduction or the psychological principles upon which the deduction is based, which are what should to be attacked if one wishes to denigrate the theories.

One must understand that the natural afterlife is an illusion that only occurs with death. I believe the article does the best job I can do in explaining this illusion, but it needs to be read closely with an open mind. Admittedly, the natural afterlife's timeless and relativistic aspects make it hard to grasp and appreciate. Think about getting someone to accept the existence of a rainbow and to appreciate it when they've never experienced one.

While others can respond to those who remain strong believers in (and perhaps want to cling to) the orthodoxy of death as a “before-life kind of nothingness” (from the perspective of the dying person), I will only respond here to those who are willing to discuss the potential impact of the natural afterlife on religion and society.
I know I'm a little late to the party but I'd like to add some of my own thoughts on the topic. To clarify, I am against the NEC theory, but I agree with Bryon that a lot of people who try to argue against it attempt to discredit him, the journal it was published in, etc, instead of arguing against the theory itself and it's proofs. So that's what I'll try to do here, I am going to argue against the theory of NEC.

For starters, I'd like to clarify that I actually understand the theory, as it's frequently misunderstood. It's simple, really. As we near death, we enter a dream state or NDE. When we die and consciousness completely ceases to exist, we are left in our final moment of the NDE in a sort of timeless awareness of it, as nothing ever happens afterwards to change our awareness of being in "Heaven" (though this heaven is entire in our mind.)This happens because it is impossible to be aware of being unaware as we are after death, so the last thing we are ever consciously aware of is our last moment in the NDE.

So what's my argument against the theory? Easy. A lack of awareness a dream or NDE has ended just does not imply continued awareness or experience of the last dream image. Unawareness does not require awareness of nothing as Bryon seems to think. When we die and our awareness of anything ends, nothing ever changes our awareness that we are in "heaven," sure, but so what? Awareness is SECONDARY to, a BYPRODUCT of consciousness and experience. Not the other way around. If consciousness and experience end, so does awareness. Awareness doesn't remain stuck in our final moment, it simply ends. Awareness is irrelevant to consciousness and experience's end, as it happens BECAUSE OF the other two, and ends with them. We observe this every single night, when we go to sleep. When we fall asleep, we cease to be aware, so nothing ever changes our awareness of being in our bed, lying awake. Regardless, sleeping isn't experienced as an instant jump from your final awake moment before you fall asleep to your first waking moment in the morning. We might not experience 8 hours of nothingness, but we experience a sort of gap, we know there was something in-between, and we experienced a sort of "darkness" in-between sleeping and waking. Why? Because awareness is irrelevant to continued experience or consciousness! We might not be aware of falling asleep, but we fall asleep just the same! Nothing changing our awareness does not imply CONTINUED awareness of the last NDE moment because awareness simply ended. And even if it did imply that, awareness only exists if consciousness exists, which IT NO LONGER DOES. Further proof of my claim that a lack of awareness changing is unimportant is the accounts of people who have temporarily clinically died to cardiac arrest, and had no NDE. I've seen the experience of that frequently described dreamless sleeping, with no sense of self, no thought, no awareness. This important because despite that lack of conscious experience or awareness, these experiences have been frequently explicitly stated to NOT have been a gap in memory or a jump from their last conscious moment to the next. This would not be the case if a lack of new moments meant permanently being stuck in the final moment. Instead they would feel like the jumped ahead in time, not stopped existing for a while. When we die, yes, we are unaware our NDE ended, but we are equally unaware it ever happened to begin with! We are simply dead, unaware, and this theory fails to disprove that notion. It is hard to imagine not existing, being completely unaware, but it will happen regardless. You might not consciously think "Hmm I think I don't exist anymore aw man" but you don't not cease to exist because you don't think the aforementioned thought. We will be just as unaware we ever were in heaven as we are that we are no longer in it. The NEC theory is an interesting hypothesis, but ultimately one that falls apart when you realize that awareness is secondary to continued consciousness and experience, and happens because of them. Because of this, awareness ends with them whether you consciously notice it or not. And after that, you'll simply cease to be. No permanent final moment, no nothing. Simply pure dreamless sleep. There is no "you" for which the awareness can permanently freeze for. Here's an analogy which might help: You are playing a video game on some videogame console, let's say Super Mario Bros. on the NES. You hit the pause button, and the game freezes. Videogames run in frames which can be seen as parallel to perceptive moments for the sake of this analogy. Now, the videogame program still exists, but no new moments are being made, thus it freezes in time. This is what Ehlmann thinks death is. However, that is ultimately not the case. Let's say instead of pausing the game, you pull the power cord of the NES from the wall outlet. What is the game "experiencing" now? Nothing. It's an incoherent question to ask as the program, which can be seen as parallel to consciousness for the sake of the analogy, has ended. The NEC theory is a pointless theory that invents a phenomena that's never been observed and tries to prove it even HAPPENS. The only explanatory power it has is over itself. Other similar baseless Afterlife theories like Robert Lanza's Biocentrism and Anthony Peake's uh.. whatever he calls his theories, attempt to explain unexplained phenomena we KNOW happens even if with rather weird baseless claims, but even that isn't the case for NEC. It just creates a phenomena that we have no reason to believe and tries to prove it happens. Regardless, thank you Bryon for doing your best to contribute to science, even when you knew the opposition you'd get for this theory. It's an interesting though pointless and baseless theory. Like I said however, it falls apart when you realize that a lack of new awareness does not imply continued awareness of our final moment because awareness is secondary to consciousness and experience, it's a result of them. If consciousness and experience end, they end, whether or not awareness ever realizes. As such, when you die, you simply cease to be. You aren't left in your final moment or anything like that. You might never be aware you stopped existing consciously, but you also simply stop being aware you ever existed. Unawareness means unawareness, not awareness of nothing. And when you're unaware, your conscious experience simply ends, as proven by the cardiac arrest survivors and by sleeping. Like I said though, thank you Bryon, for this theory and for your contributions to science, mistaken as they may be. You did your best and that is appreciated.
User avatar
Krisaaaaeeeeeeee
New Trial Member
Posts: 3
Joined: November 27th, 2020, 2:28 pm

Re: The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Post by Krisaaaaeeeeeeee »

Also, I realized this some time after writing, but Bryon actually addresses dying without an NDE in his paper, and claims that even there NEC kicks in as our last percept before being put under general anesthesia becomes "timeless" which is actually directly disproved by the accounts of people who HAVE temporarily died with no NDE as mentioned in my post above. And, at least from my perspective, that disproves NEC even with NDEs as it shows the psychological principle he refers to as imperceptible loss of consciousness or something along those lines doesn't actually exist, and the entire NEC theory is built on it.
User avatar
Papus79
Posts: 1792
Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm

Re: The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Post by Papus79 »

As more of an afterlife-afterlife or 'what birth?' guy I get the sense that one of the unquestioned assumptions is that if it's natural it's reductive materialist. It's a bit like people trying to probe that 20% rule on NDE's and see if they can figure out some Christian or Jewish moral reason as to why some experienced or didn't experience it and if it can't be jammed through the lens of religion then the 'hallucination' box fits best because Christianity and reductive materialism are seen as the only credible ideas based on number of adherents. There are all kinds of models from the 20th century and 21st which try to keep within a form of naturalism that jettisons certain assumptions, like consciousness is brain cells or some aggregate of what neurochemicals are doing, and keeps on with what a consciousness-primary universe with Darwinian natural selection occurring on all levels would look like. The power of those models also aids in understanding why some people could have all kinds of unusual experiences and, from Darwinian game theory, understand why that zone is so grifty.

For the sciences to feel more comfortable stepping out with some of the philosophers who've been moving toward things like panpsychism we're going to need to make a few more physics breakthroughs, not just in how we understand what we're seeing with things like consciousness but our ability to somehow read from the outside what's happening with it. We're still working on things from certain intuitions, a lot of those intuitions come from the cultural skirmishes that have occurred in the last few centuries between science and religion, and even after plenty of people being able to see that the polarity set up there isn't likely to get us closer to 'truth' on the issue and that it's probably somewhere in the middle of the battlefield where most people are afraid to go without getting shot down by both sides (couldn't have more in common with politics).

If I had to guess as to why 80% of people or near 80% don't have NDE's, I would be tempted to suggest that it has to do with how their minds assemble and edit information. My hypothesis would be that people who would have NDE's might have more of what's been referred to lately as schizotypal tendencies. You get plenty of people, like Dean Radin for example, who've been studying psi and the like for decades and generally don't have unusual experiences, proximity to the ideas and content or even beliefs that it's true don't seem to have as much bearing as other factors.
Humbly watching Youtube in Universe 25. - Me
User avatar
BigQuestioner
Premium Member
Posts: 10
Joined: August 22nd, 2020, 11:38 am

Re: The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

Post by BigQuestioner »

Krisaaaaeeeeeeee wrote: November 27th, 2020, 5:19 pm I know I'm a little late to the party but I'd like to add some of my own thoughts on the topic. To clarify, I am against the NEC theory, but I agree with Bryon that a lot of people who try to argue against it attempt to discredit him, the journal it was published in, etc, instead of arguing against the theory itself and it's proofs. So that's what I'll try to do here, I am going to argue against the theory of NEC.

For starters, I'd like to clarify that I actually understand the theory, as it's frequently misunderstood. It's simple, really. ...
How nice to get feedback, even a rebuttal, on my theory from someone who shows they have read the NEC article and have understood the theory. I do have a rebuttal to this rebuttal. However, before I give it on this forum, I would like to make it first in a specific way to Krisaaaaeeeeeeee. In doing so, I would like to quote from my newest article on the NEC that I am close to completing. This would make my rebuttal easier write and allow for a scholarly discussion wherein I could gain some valuable feedback on my draft. (I do not want to quote from my unpublished article to an anonymous person on a public forum.) I am not allowed to send a private message here. (I tried.) So, to Krisaaaaeeeeeeee: my email address is given in my NEC article. If you are willing, and I hope you are, please email me.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021