Do You Believe in an Afterlife? Why? Any Evidence?

[Samana Johann]

I enjoy speculations, I don't believe in them.

Nor should you (believe in them) ... until some sort of supporting evidence comes along, that is. Until then, we should suspend belief, and judgement too, neither accepting nor rejecting them without good reason. Speculation is there to be enjoyed — as you do, and I do too — I think.

It's not so that one, it done the task proper, could not remember many many past existances. So specualations aren't something one is left with if. Playing around, enjoying what's often also called "brain-mastubation" (as to bring it on a more visible perception), leaves the skeptical and speculating nature just wasting of precious old merits, good householder. It's because of joy once here, once their, delight on this and that, then being wandering on from birth to birth, oldage, sickness, seperation from beloved, death, again and again.

Remembering with proper attention is very very important to get out of lures.

I'm sorry, I can't quite see what you're getting at here. I'm not even sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with what I wrote...

Disengagement with what isn't of any good or lasting use, isn't something bad, good householder. It's called the cause of non-craving => release from the rounds of birth and suffering.

[Samana Johann]

*Disenchantment (not able to edit, pardon)

[Tom Butler]

Donald Hoffman says, “If consciousness is fundamental, and space-time is just an interface, and our bodies are merely icons that we use to represent certain assembly interactions of conscious agents … then, on that approach, there is the possibility that some aspect of my consciousness survives death.” This is what I have thought about too, because there is a clear interaction between our localised consciousness and our bodies, which would no longer be relevant when the body dies. Our bodies are even speaking to us (see my PM) and we could speculate on that, but I agree with the sentence above, that “some aspect of my consciousness survives death.” This was a what was behind a question I asked Tom Butler, which he didn’t answer, that if we no longer identify through the physical body we had, and join what he calls “the source,” what could motivate us to return to communicate with those still in a physical existence, and how do those people identify me as who I was?

Sorry I did not address your question earlier.

It is a given in Spiritualism that our friends on the other side carry over a sense of identity when they transition. However, we think it is rapidly subordinated by a new sense of self as new experiences are had. An important concept related to Psi phenomena is the idea of rapport. When we become aware of someone, we establish something of a mental link with them. According to some thought, this is a link from one person's world map to the other's physical presence, and also a mental mind-to-mind link.

If we directly communicate with that person, we strengthen that link of rapport. It would be very strong with a loved one.

When we think of that person, in effect, we call up that link of rapport helping us more clearly visualize them. The assumption is that we are linking to the person's conscious self. If the psychic mode, the person is presumed to be still in the flesh. If in mediumship, the person is assumed to be discarnate.

To an unknown degree, a psychic medium fills in sensed information with information from the psychic's own worldview. This tends to be an unconscious coloring of actual anomalously acquired information. The skill and native ability of the practitioner has a lot to do with the person's ability to "get out of the way."

An important possibility is that a psychic practitioner is expected to access information from many sources such as another person's memory, the memory of someone who had a related experience, in mediumship, information from people who remember the discarnate person. That hypothesis is under the category of Super-psi and in some versions, includes access from supposed life records in the Psi Field.

To answer your question, as I understand the theory, there is much debate whether information is from a discarnate personality (Survival Hypothesis) or from other's memory of the person (Super-Psi Hypothesis). When we include the rapport concept, it is necessary to consider the possibility that the information is from a self-coherent thoughtform that is entangled as an aspect of the discarnate personality.

From my personal experience as a mental medium, psychic and ITC practitioner, I will argue that the information seems to at least sometimes come from an interactive, sentient personality who psychically presents as the intended person. Many such examples came from the Big Circle study (atransc dot org) For instance, correct responses to direct questions spoken in the voice and mannerisms of the presumed speaker; A frequent communicator (discarnate daughter of one of the members) indicating she would be with a family gathering on the other side. These communicators clearly wanted to help their still physical loved ones get through their grief. It is important to note that many of the communications have resulted from the discarnate personality commenting on something happening in the physical.

Finally, I have spent a lot of time trying to develop a functional model of the etheric-physical interface. One important organizing principle is Perceptual Agreement. I have talked about this before. Based on First Sight Theory (à la James Carpenter), worldview tends to color perception. When our human dies, its body-mind is thought to continue as "Nature's Habit" according to The Hypothesis of Formative Causation (à la Rupert Sheldrake). At transition, we disentangle our worldview from the human and begin a process of realigning our worldview based on our new environment. (That is the popular wisdom.)

Worldview is known to have considerable momentum, and until this realigning process has run its course, it appears we tend to continue to make the world according to old assumptions. Thus, it is not unexpected for a loved one to describe doing familiar things on the other side. Part of that familiarity is apparently wanting to be near a still physical loved one.

As you can see, this is a complex and still cloudy subject. It is intellectually risky to assume it is one way or another without understanding the in-between. When you stated that "Bernardo Kastrup argues that in Idealism we must avoid the dualist separation of brain from consciousness," are you thinking Kastrup says so, thus it is true or have you considered his mostly irrelevant qualifications to pronounce about the nature of the etheric-physical interface?

[Oceegee Chika Oroke]

I believe in the afterlife because I believe there is another world, a kindle of spiritual world where out spirits truly belong to, which is where my spirit goes yo when I sleep. As for evidence, I sincerely don't know what to reply.

[Samana Johann]

I believe in the afterlife because I believe there is another world, a kindle of spiritual world where out spirits truly belong to, which is where my spirit goes yo when I sleep. As for evidence, I sincerely don't know what to reply.

If losing relay, if losing object of identification or if maintaining turns out to be a burden, doesn't good householder go on an search for the next? Why wake up? Why turning away?

[Stoppelmann]

Sorry I did not address your question earlier.

It is a given in Spiritualism that our friends on the other side carry over a sense of identity when they transition. However, we think it is rapidly subordinated by a new sense of self as new experiences are had. An important concept related to Psi phenomena is the idea of rapport. When we become aware of someone, we establish something of a mental link with them. According to some thought, this is a link from one person's world map to the other's physical presence, and also a mental mind-to-mind link.

If we directly communicate with that person, we strengthen that link of rapport. It would be very strong with a loved one.

When we think of that person, in effect, we call up that link of rapport helping us more clearly visualize them. The assumption is that we are linking to the person's conscious self. If the psychic mode, the person is presumed to be still in the flesh. If in mediumship, the person is assumed to be discarnate.

To an unknown degree, a psychic medium fills in sensed information with information from the psychic's own worldview. This tends to be an unconscious coloring of actual anomalously acquired information. The skill and native ability of the practitioner has a lot to do with the person's ability to "get out of the way."

An important possibility is that a psychic practitioner is expected to access information from many sources such as another person's memory, the memory of someone who had a related experience, in mediumship, information from people who remember the discarnate person. That hypothesis is under the category of Super-psi and in some versions, includes access from supposed life records in the Psi Field.

Without denying the experience that underlies this explanation, it seems to imply a strong imagination of a person, which enables the medium to invoke that person, or link the two, which I could envisage being strengthened by the emotional connection rather than by “getting out of the way.” The latter would suggest that the ego stands in way of a natural communication with spirits, which I can follow with regard to picking up the signals sent by animate entities, such as animals, even trees and plants, but most of all between human beings, especially when you continually experience the meeting of the eyes of complete strangers over a distance, just by looking at someone. But this seems to suggest intention and connection on a level that we seldom notice. It is like realising that you cannot not communicate when you enter the visual circle of another human being. This was an important lesson when nursing, and especially with patients with apallic syndrome, where you assume that the patient is aware of you, even though they appear to be in a vegetative state.

To answer your question, as I understand the theory, there is much debate whether information is from a discarnate personality (Survival Hypothesis) or from other's memory of the person (Super-Psi Hypothesis). When we include the rapport concept, it is necessary to consider the possibility that the information is from a self-coherent thoughtform that is entangled as an aspect of the discarnate personality.

From my personal experience as a mental medium, psychic and ITC practitioner, I will argue that the information seems to at least sometimes come from an interactive, sentient personality who psychically presents as the intended person. Many such examples came from the Big Circle study (atransc dot org) For instance, correct responses to direct questions spoken in the voice and mannerisms of the presumed speaker; A frequent communicator (discarnate daughter of one of the members) indicating she would be with a family gathering on the other side. These communicators clearly wanted to help their still physical loved ones get through their grief. It is important to note that many of the communications have resulted from the discarnate personality commenting on something happening in the physical.

A group composed of “bereaved parents, spouses, siblings and friends, whose mission is to build a channel between the physical and etheric aspects of reality–a Bridge to the Afterlife” seems to me to be holding on to what has passed and raises the question as to whether that in itself could be limiting those on the other side, as well as the people in the group. Bereavement is a hard experience, especially after a special relationship, and I have experienced a lot of that due to my job, which included attending funerals, and comforting people who experienced the loss with great pain. Especially after caring for a dying mother, father, spouse, or in particular, your own child, it is difficult to re-join society, and pick up the pieces, which is why groups grew that were about remembering, but also letting go. We encouraged them to remember the wonderful moments they had and express gratitude for having shared it with them. But like empathy has to have its barriers, grief and mourning does too. Do you ever have the feeling that some mourners are perpetuating their loss, rather than overcoming the sadness?

Finally, I have spent a lot of time trying to develop a functional model of the etheric-physical interface. One important organizing principle is Perceptual Agreement. I have talked about this before. Based on First Sight Theory (à la James Carpenter), worldview tends to color perception. When our human dies, its body-mind is thought to continue as "Nature's Habit" according to The Hypothesis of Formative Causation (à la Rupert Sheldrake). At transition, we disentangle our worldview from the human and begin a process of realigning our worldview based on our new environment. (That is the popular wisdom.)

Worldview is known to have considerable momentum, and until this realigning process has run its course, it appears we tend to continue to make the world according to old assumptions. Thus, it is not unexpected for a loved one to describe doing familiar things on the other side. Part of that familiarity is apparently wanting to be near a still physical loved one.

As you can see, this is a complex and still cloudy subject. It is intellectually risky to assume it is one way or another without understanding the in-between.

As I said above, I have no reason to doubt what you say, but my own experience (admittedly based on this side) tends to be sceptical about how much imagination is at play in producing scenarios that suggest a continuation on the other side. It is also the experience with patients whose lives were, in their own words, unprepared for death, who had great remorse, and were very restless in their final hours, that suggests for me that many of us will be shocked to see the error of our ways. I have memories that flash before me even now in meditation, where my inappropriate reaction to someone shames me. Numerous episodes in my life, despite having tried to be a morally upright and wholesome person, who tried to make the world a little better, have become blatantly clear to me, to be wrong. That is only what I remember, and I follow what CS Lewis said that he felt that some form of purgatory seems appropriate.

When you stated that "Bernardo Kastrup argues that in Idealism we must avoid the dualist separation of brain from consciousness," are you thinking Kastrup says so, thus it is true or have you considered his mostly irrelevant qualifications to pronounce about the nature of the etheric-physical interface?

Obviously, you disagree with the conclusions that he drew in that paper we spoke about earlier. I find that his logic is persuading, and he is coming from a scientific standpoint. In his videos with Rupert Spira, I have noted that there are some things he will only talk about amongst certain people, but there is a clear affinity to non-dual spirituality, even though he is reserved in his judgement. His conclusion regarding the brain, quoted above, belongs to that logic.

[Stoppelmann]

What does localised consciousness look like? Goop. Yikes.

Seriously, idealism makes more sense to me as a monist model. Still, in terms of the science, the idea of the brain as more of a filter than a generator is more speculative than the reverse. That may change, as brain science is still young.

Perhaps you should read this: https://espiritualidades.com.br/artigos ... ival-A.pdf

In terms of logic, mentality serves a purpose in nature. It allows one to outmanoeuvre, and thus, out-compete other life forms. On the other hand, is have a sense of internality an advantage over operating as a "philosophical zombie"? The latter would seem pretty efficient, just clean calculations without all that messy emotionality. However, can such interconnected complexity be achieved without sentience emerging? That's the big question with AI.

I tend to agree with Iain McGilchrist, that a modern detail-focussed vision, a tendency to see things as inanimate, having problems with metaphorical understanding, and having unreasonable optimism, tend to go together; and explains why we have difficulty seeing beyond a vision of the world that looks logical, but at a deep level isn’t really logical at all. This seems to be a habitually induced dominance of our left hemispheres, which can’t cope with the ambiguity of existence, and would prefer everything to be a simple binary computation. Fortunately, it is more complex than that.

As a side note, the geology of the Earth spawned biology, which developed intelligence, and is now imbuing it back into geology. Might biology just be a phase? … Maybe he's right, maybe he's not, but he is an interesting thinker. Still, I lean to the stuff-before-mentality angle rather than mentality-leading-to-stuff because the early universe was clearly mindless, as was the early Earth.

Might that theory be a materialistic phantasy, which the paper quoted above calls into question?

I'm a bit of a hermit, so a collective will scare the bejesus out of me. It would be a bit of a bother if, even in the underworld, I'd have to go looking for quiet niches. I think I can deal with oblivion, given that everyone craves a taste of it every night.

I'd be more bothered if I didn't think people had things covered. However, I know that when I come up with a "unique idea" there's a fair chance that Google will find 13,500 people who have already thought of it. When we go, there will be others to think pretty well all of the thoughts we might have come up with, and do the deeds that we might have done - just not all in one package.

Ultimately, we are part of the Earth that spawned us and the loss of us is akin to the loss of a cell. We shed about 600,000 cells daily. 600,000 little lives lost every day, but we continue on, unaffected, as does the Earth. The Earth is the marine corps, so to speak.

I think that many people would prefer oblivion, and some try to achieve on this side. I am also a recluse in some ways but imagine losing that aspect of your personality that is the ego of your physical existence, and experiencing a strong affinity, like coming home. That could be liberating!

I don't have any great hopes of this personality I am wearing persisting after death, nor do I see a reason for it to exist. With eight billion people, the law of averages suggests that some people will turn up who respond to situations very similarly to me. It will almost be as if I'm there, sans the memories. Just like reincarnation seems to be - an approximate reiteration of archetypes. Heck, there's probably a chimp out there that operates more like you or me than any others. Ditto ancient humans.

As I said to Tom Butler above, I question the retention of the personality (remember, a persona is the outer or assumed aspect of character, or the aspect of someone's character that is presented to or perceived by others, much like a role or character adopted by an author, actor, etc.) and rather it is the core of our consciousness that has been coloured by experience in that role, that I imagine being retained. But what do I know?

[Pattern-chaser]

In terms of logic, mentality serves a purpose in nature. It allows one to outmanoeuvre, and thus, out-compete other life forms. On the other hand, is have a sense of internality an advantage over operating as a "philosophical zombie"? The latter would seem pretty efficient, just clean calculations without all that messy emotionality. However, can such interconnected complexity be achieved without sentience emerging? That's the big question with AI.

I tend to agree with Iain McGilchrist, that a modern detail-focussed vision, a tendency to see things as inanimate, having problems with metaphorical understanding, and having unreasonable optimism, tend to go together; and explains why we have difficulty seeing beyond a vision of the world that looks logical, but at a deep level isn’t really logical at all. This seems to be a habitually induced dominance of our left hemispheres, which can’t cope with the ambiguity of existence, and would prefer everything to be a simple binary computation. Fortunately, it is more complex than that.

This is in accord with my opinions on this matter, but it's phrased in a way I hadn't thought of. And it brings together things I hadn't previously connected, consciously. Food for thought; thank you.

[Tom Butler]

A group composed of “bereaved parents, spouses, siblings and friends, whose mission is to build a channel between the physical and etheric aspects of reality–a Bridge to the Afterlife” seems to me to be holding on to what has passed and raises the question as to whether that in itself could be limiting those on the other side, as well as the people in the group. ... Do you ever have the feeling that some mourners are perpetuating their loss, rather than overcoming the sadness?

An ATransC member sent us an EVP in which the presumed speaker said "Too much pain" in response to the practitioner asking why the discarnate communicator had not contacted his still living widow. We have often heard such explanations for why we should be better informed about transition.

We offered technical guidance for subject related to working with ITC. That means we spent a lot of time explaining why their example might not be paranormal. However, our rule was to support the practitioner while not questioning their understanding of possible trans-communication.

Lisa has a 4-year degree in psychology and that helped guide us, the main reason for our different consideration for grieving people is that their mind tends to be closed to persuasion. Some people are more lucid and able to sense spirit passed the fog of grief, but as you surmise, the more common response to grief seems to prioritize fantasy and introspection, in effect, closing off from outside Psi stimuli.

The last thing a grieving person should be advised is to "get over it and move on." If the two mind model I follow is reasonably correct, the discerning intellect (spiritual self) has withdrawn to allow the human avatar to grieve, it is the human instincts we are talking to with a grieving person. I think that needs to be considered.

As I said above, I have no reason to doubt what you say, but my own experience (admittedly based on this side) tends to be sceptical about how much imagination is at play in producing scenarios that suggest a continuation on the other side

I cannot stress enough to fellow metaphysicians and paranormalists in general how important it is to account for subconscious preprocessing of incoming sensed information. The emerging paradigm of consciousness research include the understanding that people consciously experience (aka perception) what their subconscious thinks of the information.

Speaking in terms of functional areas, our intention is the only conscious influence we have to guide the formation of perception. With that in mind, I have found it useful to model conscious intention as an influence on the Imagination functional area involved in perception. If the board lets me add the diagram (it did not), you will see that the Perceptual Loop includes the Imagination function. The loop is free running and analyses everything from an itchy foot to our sense of love for a friend. Using the rule set proposed in First Sight Theory, our intention can be considered dominant in the formation of perception. However, in the short term, worldview casts the only vote, while intention shapes worldview over time.

I am beyond caring what the academic community thinks of my work. People seek information from me and I need a language that helps me make my point. When an academic tells the world EVP is just stray radio noise, and someone comes to me with a tangible EVP that sounds like the communicator is telling them they are going to Hell, I need a way of moderating that fear with rational guidance. I say this to agree that the diagram is not up to academic standards, but is a useful tool that is in generally agreement with academia.

ethericstudies dot org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Perceeption-current-June-2019.gif

Obviously, you disagree with the conclusions that he drew in that paper we spoke about earlier. I find that his logic is persuading, and he is coming from a scientific standpoint. In his videos with Rupert Spira, I have noted that there are some things he will only talk about amongst certain people, but there is a clear affinity to non-dual spirituality, even though he is reserved in his judgement. His conclusion regarding the brain, quoted above, belongs to that logic.

You cannot be expected to have read any of my essays. Since my wife and I agreed to assume leadership of the ATransC in 2000, I have made numerous efforts to collaborate with the academic community. The response has been to ignore our questions and requests for guidance. The typically criticize the lay community and ridicule those who think trans-etheric phenomena might be real. Parapsychology is full of retired professors who press their academic credentials as if we were all failing students.

Some of the essays I have on my website are:

Open Letter to Paranormalists: Limits of science, trust and responsibility
Arrogance of Scientific Authority
Debunking Survival Under Cover of False Academic Authority

I reviewed the winning BICS essays from the lay perspective with a set of essays at BICS 2021 Essay Contest – Proof of Survival

Bernardo Kastrup is trained in philosophy and computer engineering. While there is little doubt about his intellect, and I like most of what he has to say about Idealism, I see no evidence that he has informed himself about Psi phenomena. I respect his right to say what he thinks, but his words are given too much authority when it comes to the etheric-physical interface. Alternatively, people are misunderstanding his intent.

If you listen closely, he speaks from a global perspective. Parapsychologists argue that the Psi Field in nonlocal as in here is everywhere. I like to add that Psi expressions are ubiquitous as in everywhere is here. If this perspective is correct, it is a contradiction to argue that reality is best described by Dualism. That is, unless you are trying to explain to a person why there is a difference between conscious perception and the actual nature of reality. For that, it is necessary to explain that mind is in conceptual space while brain is in physical space. Else, it is all doubletalk.

So I will agree that Kastrup's Idealism seems pretty useful. But it is for us to recognize the scope of what he is saying.

[Sy Borg]

What does localised consciousness look like? Goop. Yikes.

Seriously, idealism makes more sense to me as a monist model. Still, in terms of the science, the idea of the brain as more of a filter than a generator is more speculative than the reverse. That may change, as brain science is still young.

Perhaps you should read this: https://espiritualidades.com.br/artigos ... ival-A.pdf

Too many speculations for me. I find mediumship very dodgy. James Randi had a standing offer to pay a million dollars to anyone who could demonstrate psi. This lasted for some decades but there was not one successful candidate. Not one. It always seems that the magical stuff happens when there is no investigation. That would be akin to no musicians ever being able to achieve inspiration in the recording studio over many decades.

As far as I can tell, all we have to go on are our senses, plus an established body of scientific knowledge (with some critical gaps), various traditional bodies of knowledge (unreliable, with many more gaps), plus various renegades and naysayers on the fringe (also not reliable).

In terms of logic, mentality serves a purpose in nature. It allows one to outmanoeuvre, and thus, out-compete other life forms. On the other hand, is have a sense of internality an advantage over operating as a "philosophical zombie"? The latter would seem pretty efficient, just clean calculations without all that messy emotionality. However, can such interconnected complexity be achieved without sentience emerging? That's the big question with AI.

I tend to agree with Iain McGilchrist, that a modern detail-focussed vision, a tendency to see things as inanimate, having problems with metaphorical understanding, and having unreasonable optimism, tend to go together; and explains why we have difficulty seeing beyond a vision of the world that looks logical, but at a deep level isn’t really logical at all. This seems to be a habitually induced dominance of our left hemispheres, which can’t cope with the ambiguity of existence, and would prefer everything to be a simple binary computation. Fortunately, it is more complex than that.

That does not actually address the question I was posing, which pertained to emergences that arrive through complexity. Emergence through complexity happens all through nature and in human societies (which are actually also nature). The complexity of AI will only increase, which may "turn the lights on", so to speak.

As a side note, the geology of the Earth spawned biology, which developed intelligence, and is now imbuing it back into geology. Might biology just be a phase? … Maybe he's right, maybe he's not, but he is an interesting thinker. Still, I lean to the stuff-before-mentality angle rather than mentality-leading-to-stuff because the early universe was clearly mindless, as was the early Earth.

Might that theory be a materialistic phantasy, which the paper quoted above calls into question?

It's not about materialism, it's about definitions and dynamics. Personally, I see the line between geology and biology as human-made. The difference between the first life from to evolve and the non-living complex biochemicals from which it would have emerged would be small. The difference would be that, when the former split, the resultant "daughter cells" were viable and capable of doing the same.

Still, the process is no "phantasy", quite the opposite - the Earth's evolution from a Hadean, molten world through all those iterations - "fertilisation" by Theia and asteroid bombardments, volcanism, microbes, trilobites, dinosaurs, humanity.

I'm a bit of a hermit, so a collective will scare the bejesus out of me. It would be a bit of a bother if, even in the underworld, I'd have to go looking for quiet niches. I think I can deal with oblivion, given that everyone craves a taste of it every night.

I'd be more bothered if I didn't think people had things covered. However, I know that when I come up with a "unique idea" there's a fair chance that Google will find 13,500 people who have already thought of it. When we go, there will be others to think pretty well all of the thoughts we might have come up with, and do the deeds that we might have done - just not all in one package.

Ultimately, we are part of the Earth that spawned us and the loss of us is akin to the loss of a cell. We shed about 600,000 cells daily. 600,000 little lives lost every day, but we continue on, unaffected, as does the Earth. The Earth is the marine corps, so to speak.

I think that many people would prefer oblivion, and some try to achieve on this side. I am also a recluse in some ways but imagine losing that aspect of your personality that is the ego of your physical existence, and experiencing a strong affinity, like coming home. That could be liberating!

I question whether such liberation lasts longer than one's brain oxygen allows. Mind you, extraordinary things can happen within those few minutes of remaining brain oxygen, when one is on the threshold of death. In fact, with information compression and resultant time dilation in the dying brain (and based on many anecdotal reports), it seems one can subjectively have a pretty hefty afterlife in that period. Maybe one that feels like forever?

I don't have any great hopes of this personality I am wearing persisting after death, nor do I see a reason for it to exist. With eight billion people, the law of averages suggests that some people will turn up who respond to situations very similarly to me. It will almost be as if I'm there, sans the memories. Just like reincarnation seems to be - an approximate reiteration of archetypes. Heck, there's probably a chimp out there that operates more like you or me than any others. Ditto ancient humans.

As I said to Tom Butler above, I question the retention of the personality (remember, a persona is the outer or assumed aspect of character, or the aspect of someone's character that is presented to or perceived by others, much like a role or character adopted by an author, actor, etc.) and rather it is the core of our consciousness that has been coloured by experience in that role, that I imagine being retained. But what do I know?

What does anyone know?

If we meld into the whole, then we are gone in one sense and still present in another, woven into the fabric of reality, so to speak.

I see myself as a part of the planet, only marginally different to rocks, bugs, birds, dogs, trees or the air. We are how the Earth re-arranges its atoms in response to entropy that is driven by the constant flow of energy from the Sun. There's no need for any of us to live forever, no apparent driver for such a dynamic.

If things don't go too awry, the Earth has an extraordinary future, spreading its forms to simpler worlds, and we are being woven into that broader slice of history. That's the main game as far as I can tell, and the rest is just detail (unless there are larger layers we are too small to perceive).

The Earthly forms that mould the materials of other planets to match their ideas won't be human forms, though. Humanity will lie at their roots, just as bacteria lie at ours.

[Sy Borg]

In terms of logic, mentality serves a purpose in nature. It allows one to outmanoeuvre, and thus, out-compete other life forms. On the other hand, is have a sense of internality an advantage over operating as a "philosophical zombie"? The latter would seem pretty efficient, just clean calculations without all that messy emotionality. However, can such interconnected complexity be achieved without sentience emerging? That's the big question with AI.

I tend to agree with Iain McGilchrist, that a modern detail-focussed vision, a tendency to see things as inanimate, having problems with metaphorical understanding, and having unreasonable optimism, tend to go together; and explains why we have difficulty seeing beyond a vision of the world that looks logical, but at a deep level isn’t really logical at all. This seems to be a habitually induced dominance of our left hemispheres, which can’t cope with the ambiguity of existence, and would prefer everything to be a simple binary computation. Fortunately, it is more complex than that.

This is in accord with my opinions on this matter, but it's phrased in a way I hadn't thought of. And it brings together things I hadn't previously connected, consciously. Food for thought; thank you.

If one sees things as inanimate, one might not think of metaphysics as anything but the shenanigans of humans brains.

Then again, I am a panvitalist but I suspect that materialists may well be right about metaphysics. My guess is that subjectivity itself is undervalued, which results in those seeking depth to sometimes imagine metaphysics as physically "out there", when it's actually "in here". Ultimately, "in here" is all we have, something that people having NDEs realise when their recently-dead body is rendered irrelevant and all that is left is mind in a brain that is shutting down in stages. So I don't believe in grand deities "out there", I believe in grand deities "in here".

The main weakness of materialism comes with labelling, which is essential for analysis, but is ideally not taken entirely seriously. There's always the danger of mistaking the map for the territory, especially when material is abstract. For instance, saying that electrons are wave functions. Really? I would think they map as wave functions. Electrons are actually ephemeral twinklings of energy that occur (seemingly) randomly within a field whose properties are influenced in the presence of other energies in ways that can be measured with great precision.

I guess "wave function" is more succinct. Touché boffins :)

As for "unreasonable optimism", we might need to define "unreasonable". Unrealistic? Like Michio Kaku's speculations about a wildly technological far future without significant transhumanist alterations? If so, ok. I'm guessing that many boffins have been influenced by Star Trek, imagining a future where natural humans live luxuriantly, completely in control of machines that would be vastly more intelligent than they are. I love Star Trek too but ...

[Stoppelmann]

An ATransC member sent us an EVP in which the presumed speaker said "Too much pain" in response to the practitioner asking why the discarnate communicator had not contacted his still living widow. We have often heard such explanations for why we should be better informed about transition.

We offered technical guidance for subject related to working with ITC. That means we spent a lot of time explaining why their example might not be paranormal. However, our rule was to support the practitioner while not questioning their understanding of possible trans-communication.

Lisa has a 4-year degree in psychology and that helped guide us, the main reason for our different consideration for grieving people is that their mind tends to be closed to persuasion. Some people are more lucid and able to sense spirit passed the fog of grief, but as you surmise, the more common response to grief seems to prioritize fantasy and introspection, in effect, closing off from outside Psi stimuli.

It is this ambiguity that led us to encourage mourners to tell their story in a small group, or present the biography that we helped them put together using photographs, letters, or journal entries of their loved ones. Of course, there were tears, but first of all having that biography, and secondly having spoken about it, helped them accept that their loved ones had moved on, and we often said they were waiting for them. We encouraged a place in their home where they could remember, and even speak out their feelings, to their loved ones, like some people pray. We also had a book with all the names with photographs of people who died in the Hospice, and a ceremony once a year.

The last thing a grieving person should be advised is to "get over it and move on." If the two mind model I follow is reasonably correct, the discerning intellect (spiritual self) has withdrawn to allow the human avatar to grieve, it is the human instincts we are talking to with a grieving person. I think that needs to be considered.

I think it is clear from the above that we were not callous about it, but we didn’t go into seances or any other methods to contact the dead, but used everyday practices that have a long tradition all over the world. Some told us that they saw “inbetween” images of those they felt were comforting them, but most were content to take part in our meetings.

I cannot stress enough to fellow metaphysicians and paranormalists in general how important it is to account for subconscious preprocessing of incoming sensed information. The emerging paradigm of consciousness research include the understanding that people consciously experience (aka perception) what their subconscious thinks of the information.

Speaking in terms of functional areas, our intention is the only conscious influence we have to guide the formation of perception. With that in mind, I have found it useful to model conscious intention as an influence on the Imagination functional area involved in perception. If the board lets me add the diagram (it did not), you will see that the Perceptual Loop includes the Imagination function. The loop is free running and analyses everything from an itchy foot to our sense of love for a friend. Using the rule set proposed in First Sight Theory, our intention can be considered dominant in the formation of perception. However, in the short term, worldview casts the only vote, while intention shapes worldview over time.

I mentioned the imagination because I have occasionally these “inbetween” visions, which are mostly not of the dead, but of places that I visit after a long time being away, in which the shadow of how it used to look before overlays my present view. Or I see situations in places long after they have occurred when visiting that place. I once saw my late father’s face overlaying my face in a mirror, but he didn’t speak. I put it down to a vivid imagination, brought about by an emotional state that isn’t obvious to me at the time. Perhaps that has something to do with what you call the perceptual loop.

I am beyond caring what the academic community thinks of my work. People seek information from me and I need a language that helps me make my point. When an academic tells the world EVP is just stray radio noise, and someone comes to me with a tangible EVP that sounds like the communicator is telling them they are going to Hell, I need a way of moderating that fear with rational guidance. I say this to agree that the diagram is not up to academic standards, but is a useful tool that is in generally agreement with academia.

Ethericstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Perceeption-current-June-2019.gif

I am a bit slow at understanding diagrams, but I think I have grasped enough to realise that you are rational about the whole issue. But you will perhaps see from what I have written above that I have no academic approach, but hands on experience with people in the situation.

You cannot be expected to have read any of my essays. Since my wife and I agreed to assume leadership of the ATransC in 2000, I have made numerous efforts to collaborate with the academic community. The response has been to ignore our questions and requests for guidance. The typically criticize the lay community and ridicule those who think trans-etheric phenomena might be real. Parapsychology is full of retired professors who press their academic credentials as if we were all failing students.

My comment was based on your mention of Bernardo Kastrup’s “mostly irrelevant qualifications” which seemed to criticise his right to propose a hypothesis, but you’ve cleared that up. I have looked at you essays but would need time that I presently haven’t got to delve deeper. The subject matter is foreign to me and needs my brain to shift gear to understand it. However, knowing how academia reacts to anything that they didn’t discover themselves, I can understand a certain dismissal of academic denigration on your part.

[Alexis99x]

Well, the fact that it there is no way that it can be proven since "Afterlife" term itself is a question not to be asked but something human, opted to believed. But what does it implies to humanity or to the believer will never change the fact that human thinking is limited to the "qualia" or to the things human can perceived through senses.
Personally, if it did exist, well it's a best thing for me to understand and to answer the fundamental questions that humanity allowed to. It is a good topic to open though since it may open the blueprinted question within us, humans.

[A Material Girl]

Well, the fact that it there is no way that it can be proven since "Afterlife" term itself is a question not to be asked but something human, opted to believed. But what does it implies to humanity or to the believer will never change the fact that human thinking is limited to the "qualia" or to the things human can perceived through senses.
Personally, if it did exist, well it's a best thing for me to understand and to answer the fundamental questions that humanity allowed to. It is a good topic to open though since it may open the blueprinted question within us, humans.

I am sorry, but I don't believe in after-life.

But, I do believe in after-party!

[Philosophy_of_Guitar]

HAHAhahaha PROVE THIS peeps!

I have some insights to share about this in some days.

Good to see an agnostic... And a Madonna fan

Cheers.