The Impact of the Natural Afterlife on Religion and Society

[Steve3007]

But that 'to me' closes the door to any rational debate. I can also say that quadrupeds are five-legged animals 'to me'.

It's quite amusing to think of all the other rhetorical devices that can be used in a similar way - to avoid making propositions that can be tested by others. Scare-quotes are a popular one. Prefixing sentences with expressions like "In a sense..." can also be quite effective.

[Belindi]

Evolution wrote:



I agree(if I understand you right). And I don't doubt that the most socially obscure person, like the famous butterfly, is influential. Every event is a necessary event: each entire human life, taken as one event, is a necessary event. The block universe is a true hypothesis.

The ethical corollary of the block universe,in which every human life is a necessary event, is the more we know of another life the better our understanding of it.

What i found was; the better i understood thy own personal life, then the more i learned, and thus knew, of every other life.

If you don't know yourself your prejudices will get in the way of your empathy.

[Terrapin Station]

When in a time-perceiving state of mind, we consciously perceive events, which define our sense of time and
of movement, not continuously but in discrete conscious moments (Herzog, Kammer, and Scharnowski, 2016; Stroud, 1955; von Baer, 1862). We perceive, and can thus be cognizant of, only one of these moments at a time, the present moment, which remains the present one until replaced by the next moment.

Among other issues that would require an in-depth critique of the Herzog et al paper, the comment there appears to be conflating

(a) the claim that data from outside of us can only be processed by our sensory-perceptual systems in discrete chunks (which is dubious, but this is why we'd need to do an in-depth critique of the paper, its methodology, and the way it's reaching conclusions from its methodology)

and

(b) a concomitant claim that consciousness is thus a series of discrete moments.

(b) isn't the same as (a), and (b) doesn't follow from (a). Furthermore, (b) is obviously false, because we have the phenomenal experience of motion. This can't be illusory phenomenal experience of motion, because consciousness would have to be what's experiencing the illusion, and if the motion appears in the "illusion," consciousness must be consciousness of motion. It can only be illusory relative to something that's NOT consciousness, relative to something else that's "really going on." This same mistake is made over and over again in a lot of literature, especially in eliminativist literature.

[BigQuestioner]

I suggest that until you do your "an in-depth critique of the Herzog et al paper," you refrain from pontificating on it.

[evolution]

But 'Life', Itself, NEVER 'ends', to me.

So, there is NO 'no-life', in death, to me.

But that 'to me' closes the door to any rational debate. I can also say that quadrupeds are five-legged animals 'to me'.

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.

If, and when, a statement is being proposed, and it is NOT being made clear that this is just 'from my perspective', 'from my view', nor 'to me' only, then that could be accused as being a claim or proposition of what is said to be actually True, Right, or Correct, and therefore is closed off to ANY thing contrary.

By me pointing out to "others" that what I am saying, claiming or proposing, is what is true, right, and/or correct, 'to me', means that what is actually True, Right, and/or Correct could be some thing else, and which I am completely OPEN to.

See, me saying, 'to me', is NOT implying NOR claiming that 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.

Organisms, any that we know of their existence in the past or the present, without any doubt live only once.

Does that "without any doubt" close the door to any rational debate, or discussion, or OPEN the door.

See, to me, saying, 'without any doubt', does NOT leave absolutely any room at all for absolutely any thing else.

There's only one life and that we can refer to as the natural life, which belongs to a natural cycle that begins with birth and ends with death.

Does saying, "There's only one life", leave 'you' OPEN to having a Truly meaningful, logical, and rational discussions, which might reveal some thing different?

Once they're dead, there's no more, no more life for that organism. One can play with metaphors around this single fact, but that literal fact does not change.

Wow talk about 'closing the door to any rational debate', or rational discussion.

Anything purported to be literally, factually, having a new life cycle after completing the first one is pure religious fantasy, that can be appropriately be called a claim of the supernatural.

Okay. If you say so.

But this is so far from ANY thing I have talked about, or have questioned you about, than I think getting you back on track might be to far gone now.

[evolution]

But that 'to me' closes the door to any rational debate. I can also say that quadrupeds are five-legged animals 'to me'.

It's quite amusing to think of all the other rhetorical devices that can be used in a similar way - to avoid making propositions that can be tested by others. Scare-quotes are a popular one. Prefixing sentences with expressions like "In a sense..." can also be quite effective.

And UNTIL CLARIFICATION with the ACTUAL ONE who wrote the actual sentence, claim, proposition, statement, et cetera is made, then what the reader just ASSUMES is being said, claimed, et cetera, could be completely and utterly WRONG, and INCORRECT.

For example, what some people call 'scare-quotes' are NOT necessarily, so called, 'scare-quotes' at all. In fact it is quite amusing that some people are still NOT YET AWARE that the expression 'scar-quotes', which is used in some countries, is not even a KNOWN thing in other countries. ASSUMING how some people use some devices or expressions, then means that ALL other people in ALL other countries use them the same way is about one of the most ABSURD things that I have heard of. What is ASSUMED to be 'scar-quotes', could have been being some thing else, for completely OTHER reasons. But this will NEVER be KNOWN while ASSUMPTIONS are being made, and CLARIFICATION is NOT being made.

Also, if ANY one thinks or believes that starting a sentence with "In a sense ...", for example, means that the person writing that sentence is 'trying to' avoid making propositions that can be tested by others, then I find this one of the most amusing and hilarious things I have heard, in quite a while.

What could actually STOP ANY person testing another's propositions?

Surely just the three simple little words "In a sense ..." or the two simple little marks ' ' could NOT actually stop a person from testing another's propositions?

When I say, 'to me', this is to NOT to avoid being tested but rather to SHOW that what I am saying is just 'to me' and NOT 'to what IS actually thee Truth of things'.

I have made it quite clear, continuously, that EVERY thing I say could be UNTRUE, WRONG, and/or INCORRECT, and that what I say NEEDS 'clarifying questions' in order to be FULLY UNDERSTAND, properly AND correctly. I have also made it quite clear that I WANT to be 'challenged', or 'tested', on absolutely EVERY thing I say. I KNOW I can back up and support what I say, with EVIDENCE and/or PROOF.

Continually ASSUMING what another is saying and meaning, by the way they write, without every actually CLARIFYING with them, will only lead to MISUNDERSTANDINGS, like expressed above.

Basing what another is actually saying, on one self's own past life experiences, only leads to MORE CONFUSION, and MORE MISUNDERSTANDING.

[evolution]

What i found was; the better i understood thy own personal life, then the more i learned, and thus knew, of every other life.

If you don't know yourself your prejudices will get in the way of your empathy.

Maybe so. But KNOWING thy 'Self' alleviates all of this, completely.

Also, to know 'yourself', one would have to know who and what the thing is that is the one that has a 'self', as well as who and want the 'self' actually is, also.

[Belindi]

If you don't know yourself your prejudices will get in the way of your empathy.

Maybe so. But KNOWING thy 'Self' alleviates all of this, completely.

Also, to know 'yourself', one would have to know who and what the thing is that is the one that has a 'self', as well as who and want the 'self' actually is, also.

In the context of the self within society, the self is that which is either selfish on the one hand or altruistic and considerate on the other hand. For example emotional reaction is often selfish in intention and effect, whereas due reflection accompanied by knowledge is more likely to yield universal benefit. When I know my emotional triggers I can be on my guard not to over -react.

I make myself sound a right prig! But I can holiday with Dionysus as well as anyone else.

In Greek mythology, Apollo and Dionysus are both sons of Zeus. Apollo is the god of the sun, of rational thinking and order, and appeals to logic, prudence and purity. Dionysus is the god of wine and dance, of irrationality and chaos, and appeals to emotions and instincts

Wikipedia

[evolution]

Maybe so. But KNOWING thy 'Self' alleviates all of this, completely.

Also, to know 'yourself', one would have to know who and what the thing is that is the one that has a 'self', as well as who and want the 'self' actually is, also.

In the context of the self within society, the self is that which is either selfish on the one hand or altruistic and considerate on the other hand. For example emotional reaction is often selfish in intention and effect, whereas due reflection accompanied by knowledge is more likely to yield universal benefit. When I know my emotional triggers I can be on my guard not to over -react.

I make myself sound a right prig! But I can holiday with Dionysus as well as anyone else.

In Greek mythology, Apollo and Dionysus are both sons of Zeus. Apollo is the god of the sun, of rational thinking and order, and appeals to logic, prudence and purity. Dionysus is the god of wine and dance, of irrationality and chaos, and appeals to emotions and instincts

Wikipedia

Okay. This is all well and good, but you appear to have completely and utterly missed or misunderstood what I was saying, and meaning.

[Papus79]

I know I'm throwing in a lot of tangents on this thread but in keeping with what I was talking with Terrapin about earlier:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t1_ffaFXao

Really good discussion between Lex Friedman and Stephen Wolfram. Stephen is making a point about the relationship between space and time which might be the first time I've heard someone really make an unambiguous case for the idea that time is just processing within a hypergraph and that space is the hypergraph, time is system processing around other factors, and that he believes he can even adequately explain Lorentz transformations.

If that actually is the case, ie. that time has a contextual orientation against an even more profound backdrop than space, I could at least consider that A-time is a thing, impossible to say at the absolute level whether it's A-time or B-time but at least for what's under local examination one could say that A-time is our most proximate reality.

In that case I'd want to then reach back into my thread on premonition and say that if such things as premonition can happen then we're looking at data patterns yet to occur that have a high degree of velocity on them and which do ultimately come to pass.

I'm really not ready to take any tools of examination off the table based on which unsavory group believes it (dirty hippies and crystal-waving soccer moms included) but any of this where we can actually look at consciousness 'doing' in the universe and see that it's being coughed up from deeper levels gives us at least some sense of a map. Without broader context we're pretty much just protein sources for each other, we might even still be that with a map but at least with a map there are other games that can be credibly played than simply Darwinian evolution by natural selection and social obsession over whose genes are fit or unfit.

[Terrapin Station]

I suggest that until you do your "an in-depth critique of the Herzog et al paper," you refrain from pontificating on it.

I suggest that you're not really capable of philosophical interaction given this response.

[Belindi]

In the context of the self within society, the self is that which is either selfish on the one hand or altruistic and considerate on the other hand. For example emotional reaction is often selfish in intention and effect, whereas due reflection accompanied by knowledge is more likely to yield universal benefit. When I know my emotional triggers I can be on my guard not to over -react.

I make myself sound a right prig! But I can holiday with Dionysus as well as anyone else.

Wikipedia

Okay. This is all well and good, but you appear to have completely and utterly missed or misunderstood what I was saying, and meaning.

It's your responsibility to make yourself clear.
However I'll try to guess what you mean. The self is not an entity. People don't 'have' selfs like they might have dog, or have a full stomach.

Self is defined by that which is not- self. For instance 'me'. I'd say I might be defined partly by my gender( not masculine ) or my hair colour (not black or purple or whatever), or my ignorance of mathematics( not educated in maths), or my popularity (not disliked or hated), or my social status (neither a Queen nor a prisoner and so forth).

I feel myself to be myself because my memories are continuous, although if I became demented I might loose my sense of self.

You will find that anything, event, or idea, of any sort is defined by what it is not.

[Gee]

My article "The Theory of a Natural Eternal Consciousness: The Psychological Basis for a Natural Afterlife" was published May 2020 in the Journal of Mind and Behavior. (A postprint copy is available on ResearchGate.) The article claims a non-supernatural, i.e., scientifically supported, timeless, eternal consciousness, which can be a natural afterlife. Moreover, this afterlife can be heavenly or hellish. Thus, for the first time, this article actually identifies a Heaven and Hell that are real, though as you will see if you read the article, they are not what most people envision in that they are timeless and "all in the mind."

First I would like to thank you for introducing me to ResearchGate, as I was not aware that it was available. Lots of information in one place. It looks interesting.

Also, I would like to state that I have known for many years that different aspects of mind treat time differently, but it is nice to know that someone is trying to learn why these aspects treat time differently and how this works. Physics studies time, but I don't understand physics at all, so no help there. Psychology has always interested me, but I have no training in it, although this is where my thoughts about mind and time originated, so I hope to be able to decipher at least some of your theory.

I have not read a lot of the theory, but from what I learned, what you call the NEC, I would call the unconscious, or at least certain layers of the unconscious. I have a very generalized interpretation, so can you see these ideas as generally comparable? Also, I think of religion's "God" idea as an interpretation of the unconscious with a persona, intent, and sometimes a being attached to the idea, so I can see where heaven and hell would come into the discussion.

While looking into NDE's, I found that death is a process. When the brain quits, we lose our rational aspect of mind, our ability to produce thoughts which are discrete data, and what most people call our consciousness. (This part of the mind works within causal reality.) It takes the body hours, maybe days, for every cell to die, and it is at this time that the unconscious (NEC) controls the mind. If we wake up, (NDE) then the brain tries to assimilate and translate all of the information that transpired in experience while the brain was out to lunch. But it is an impossible task because the unconscious (NEC) is analogue and timeless, just like all emotion is, so it is difficult to make sense of the massive amounts of information that were experienced in mere minutes, or seconds.

I would be interested to know how you think this works when there is a normal death compared to something like an explosion where both the conscious and unconscious disappear simultaneously. Also how "self", bonding, and identity work, and what the parameters of mind are in your theory about the NEC. Is some of this in the theory?

For those who read most of the article (you may skip some of the more technical parts if you wish), get the gist of the natural afterlife, and are open to its possibility, I pose the following questions:
1) How does the natural afterlife impact various religions? Can it be seen as compatible?

I did not read enough to be sure, but I would say probably. I don't see that as the problem. The problem is that it is too intellectual to actually work within a religion. Religion is a discipline that studies emotion and calls it "God". Emotion does not like change, does not accept change -- look at what the changes of Vatican II did to the Catholic Church in the late 60's or early 70's. It almost destroyed it.

In order to create a following, whether it be secular or religious, a leader needs three things: an idea, events, and a persona to appeal to the three basic levels of intelligence. The idea may draw about 15% of the populace, the intellectuals. Events are required to hold the attention of about 70% of the populace, the average citizen, and can be accomplished with sunday church, socials, wednesday bible study, holidays and festivals, parades, town council meetings, etc. The average person needs to be involved in some way. The less intellectual people need a persona, as do all of the children. We start out with a persona as children and keep this image of a king, a president, a prophet, a "God", or a founder of the idea, etc.

I predict that since religion is a study of emotion and emotion does not like change, then people will talk rationally all the while they are trying to visualize Jesus, Buddha, Mohamed, etc., in the NEC. (chuckle)

2) Does the possibility of a natural afterlife benefit society? (For many, I believe it "puts Hell back on the table." Is this good or bad.)

Not sure. I remember reading about some state south of me where they have the death penalty. Some higher court was saying that they had to change the chemistry in their lethal injection because it intentionally caused unbelievable pain -- it was thought to be torture. Killing someone for their crimes is one thing, but forcing an eternal hell of torture is something else.

What about a stupid teenager, who indulges in a drive-by shooting? If he shoots a child, who dies before getting to the hospital, did the stupid teenager cause the child to have an eternity of pain? Should he suffer for this? What will the child's parents do? Go mad?

Gee

[Count Lucanor]

But that 'to me' closes the door to any rational debate. I can also say that quadrupeds are five-legged animals 'to me'.

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.

If, and when, a statement is being proposed, and it is NOT being made clear that this is just 'from my perspective', 'from my view', nor 'to me' only, then that could be accused as being a claim or proposition of what is said to be actually True, Right, or Correct, and therefore is closed off to ANY thing contrary.

By me pointing out to "others" that what I am saying, claiming or proposing, is what is true, right, and/or correct, 'to me', means that what is actually True, Right, and/or Correct could be some thing else, and which I am completely OPEN to.

See, me saying, 'to me', is NOT implying NOR claiming that 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.

Your phrase 'to me' is meant to emphasize that a particular statement does not leave the domain of your own subjective experience and beliefs. Since the rational underpinnings of that subjective belief are not accessible to anyone but yourself, then we can conclude that they are enclosed in that domain where only you can manipulate them, they are not offered in debate. If they were accessible for all to debate, then they would have stopped being yours only and you would not use the phrase 'to me'. By definition, debate starts at the moment when ideas are liberated from their subjective enclosures and thrown into the public arena of rational discussion, with the purpose of being recognized as objective truths, that is, of being acknowledged valid to rest of the participants (to us). Necessarily, to reach any agreement, there are some common rules to the debate as the use of of logic and facts in arguments. Anyone can have any idea about anything and use any arbitrary rules that suits their own needs to justify their own personal beliefs. People can believe anything and say it works for them. But these beliefs mean nothing to anyone else if they never reach the debate.

Organisms, any that we know of their existence in the past or the present, without any doubt live only once.

Does that "without any doubt" close the door to any rational debate, or discussion, or OPEN the door.

See, to me, saying, 'without any doubt', does NOT leave absolutely any room at all for absolutely any thing else.

The evidence that organisms live and die is overwhelming. I haven't heard of any rational mind suggesting otherwise. I mean, not even those that believe other cycles of life come after that, will doubt it. But the evidence of another life after the first one is null, the door has been opened for quite some time, and nothing has come in.

There's only one life and that we can refer to as the natural life, which belongs to a natural cycle that begins with birth and ends with death.

Does saying, "There's only one life", leave 'you' OPEN to having a Truly meaningful, logical, and rational discussions, which might reveal some thing different?

Statements asserted as truths in a debate are open to challenge, that's what debates are for. If you think you can challenge the statement that there's only one life, nothing stops you from trying.

Once they're dead, there's no more, no more life for that organism. One can play with metaphors around this single fact, but that literal fact does not change.

Wow talk about 'closing the door to any rational debate', or rational discussion.

Again: statements asserted as truths in a debate are open to challenge, that's what debates are for. If you think you can challenge the statement that there's only one life, nothing stops you from trying.

Anything purported to be literally, factually, having a new life cycle after completing the first one is pure religious fantasy, that can be appropriately be called a claim of the supernatural.

Okay. If you say so.

But this is so far from ANY thing I have talked about, or have questioned you about, than I think getting you back on track might be to far gone now.

OK, then we agree that that particular statement of mine remains unchallenged. You are also agreeing that you don't support the idea that anything can literally, factually, have a new life cycle after completing the first one.

[Belindi]

If you don't know yourself your prejudices will get in the way of your empathy.

Maybe so. But KNOWING thy 'Self' alleviates all of this, completely.

Also, to know 'yourself', one would have to know who and what the thing is that is the one that has a 'self', as well as who and want the 'self' actually is, also.

You have to know your predispositions, abilities, and weaknesses.
People don't 'have' selves. People are selves.