Our Natural Eternal Consciousness: A Timeless Remnant in the Disembodied Mind

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

BigQuestioner
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:07 pm

Our Natural Eternal Consciousness: A Timeless Remnant in the Disembodied Mind

Post by BigQuestioner » Thu Nov 07, 2019 9:37 pm

Warning: Due to the terminology used above, this post may be readily dismissed as dealing with the paranormal. It does not! It does, however, require an open mind.

A Dec 2002/Jan 2003 article in Philosophy Now , “Life After Death” by Steve Stewart-Williams, presents an argument FOR and AGAINST life after death. It identifies one kind of afterlife as that in which “survival takes place outside the body … as a disembodied mind” and argues in “The Case Against Survival” that “The Dependence of Mind on Brain” is “the strongest argument against survival” after death. Not taken into account by the article, however, is our natural eternal consciousness (NEC), which does not depend on a functioning brain and makes a natural afterlife possible.

This non-supernatural, disembodied consciousness and possible afterlife are timeless and, admittedly, survival is illusory. From the perspective of the dying person, however, these phenomena are not timeless, only eternal, and the experience provided is very real. The brief treatise given below gives an inkling into the psychological basis for the NEC and the referenced article formally defines it and argues for its reality.
-------------------------------------
An Overview of the Psychological Basis for the Natural Eternal Consciousness

From basic psychology, two opposing hypotheses can be deduced for what we will experience upon death. The first is based on the definitions of mind and consciousness like those given in many introductory psychology textbooks. The second delves just a bit deeper and is based on human experience and established cognitive principles in time and conscious perception.

Hypothesis 1: Quoting from a © 2014 psychology textbook by Zimbardo: “The mind is the product of the brain,” consciousness is “the brain process that creates our mental representation of the world and our current thoughts” and “as a process … is dynamic and continual rather than static.” Therefore, when the brain dies, the mind as its product and consciousness as a brain process must totally cease to exist and we will “experience” a before-life kind of nothingness.

Hypothesis 2: We perceive time as a sequence of events evolving one discrete conscious moment at a time. Outside of these present moments, e.g., dreamless sleep, we perceive of nothing. Before death a still functioning brain produces one last present moment of a perceived event within some experience, perhaps a dream, and then is forever incapable of producing another one that would cognitively supplant the last one from our consciousness. Therefore, we never perceive, and thus are never aware, that our last experience is over, and so a remnant of consciousness, an experience paused in a moment at a point in time, will become imperceptibly timeless, i.e., static, and deceptively eternal relative to our perspective. (Here experience is not in quotes as it is indeed experienced before death.)

Hypothesis 1, despite lacking empirical verification, has been accepted as orthodoxy by many. It can only be verified after death, which is impossible. In contrast, Hypothesis 2 has hitherto been overlooked, likely because of the orthodoxies of 1 and religion and the difficulty for the living to view death strictly from the dying person's frame of reference, i.e., only that which is perceived by the dying. Moreover, 2 can be verified before death and is so to some degree with each everyday human encounter with timelessness, e.g., dreamless sleep, each being perceptively like death. Especially relevant are those encounters after which we awaken instantly startled when our first conscious moment is inconsistent with our last—e.g., when waking up after having an intense dream. One need only ask: “Suppose I had never woke up?”

For much more detail on hypothesis 2, read The Theory of a Natural Eternal Consciousness: The Psychological Basis for a Natural Afterlife.
Last edited by BigQuestioner on Fri Nov 08, 2019 8:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Age
Posts: 3573
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Our Natural Eternal Consciousness: A Timeless Remnant in the Disembodied Mind

Post by Age » Fri Nov 08, 2019 12:57 am

BigQuestioner wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 9:37 pm
A Dec 2002/Jan 2003 article in Philosophy Now , “Life After Death” by Steve Stewart-Williams, presents an argument FOR and AGAINST life after death. It identifies one kind of afterlife as that in which “survival takes place outside the body … as a disembodied mind” and argues in “The Case Against Survival” that “The Dependence of Mind on Brain” is “the strongest argument against survival” after death. Not taken into account by the article, however, is our natural eternal consciousness (NEC), which does not depend on a functioning brain and makes a natural afterlife possible.

This non-supernatural, disembodied consciousness and possible afterlife are timeless and, admittedly, survival is illusory. From the perspective of the dying person, however, these phenomena are not timeless, only eternal, and the experience provided is very real. The brief treatise given below gives an inkling into the psychological basis for the NEC and the referenced article formally defines it and argues for its reality.
-------------------------------------
An Overview of the Psychological Basis for the Natural Eternal Consciousness

From basic psychology, two opposing hypotheses can be deduced for what we will experience upon death. The first is based on the definitions of mind and consciousness like those given in many introductory psychology textbooks. The second delves just a bit deeper and is based on human experience and established cognitive principles in time and conscious perception.

Hypothesis 1: Quoting from a © 2014 psychology textbook by Zimbardo: “The mind is the product of the brain,” consciousness is “the brain process that creates our mental representation of the world and our current thoughts” and “as a process … is dynamic and continual rather than static.” Therefore, when the brain dies, the mind as its product and consciousness as a brain process must totally cease to exist and we will “experience” a before-life kind of nothingness.

Hypothesis 2: We perceive time as a sequence of events evolving one discrete conscious moment at a time. Outside of these present moments, e.g., dreamless sleep, we perceive of nothing. Before death a still functioning brain produces one last present moment of a perceived event within some experience, perhaps a dream, and then is forever incapable of producing another one that would cognitively supplant the last one from our consciousness. Therefore, we never perceive, and thus are never aware, that our last experience is over, and so a remnant of consciousness, an experience paused in a moment at a point in time, will become imperceptibly timeless, i.e., static, and deceptively eternal relative to our perspective. (Here experience is not in quotes as it is indeed experienced before death.)

Hypothesis 1, despite lacking empirical verification, has been accepted as orthodoxy by many. It can only be verified after death, which is impossible. In contrast, Hypothesis 2 has hitherto been overlooked, likely because of the orthodoxies of 1 and religion and the difficulty for the living to view death strictly from the dying person's frame of reference, i.e., only that which is perceived by the dying. Moreover, 2 can be verified before death and is so to some degree with each everyday human encounter with timelessness, e.g., dreamless sleep, each being perceptively like death. Especially relevant are those encounters after which we awaken instantly startled when our first conscious moment is inconsistent with our last—e.g., when waking up after having an intense dream. One need only ask: “Suppose I had never woke up?”

For much more detail on hypothesis 2, read The Theory of a Natural Eternal Consciousness: The Psychological Basis for a Natural Afterlife.
Hypotheses 2 is an intriguing idea, of which i had not invisioned before, but, hypotheses 2 can also only be verified after death, which would also be impossible, correct?

When waking up after an intense dream one could ask the question; "Suppose I had never woke up?" But the answer to that would NEVER verify hypotheses 2, for two very simple reasons:
1. You did wake up. So any answer given would just be a guess, and thus nothing confirmable.
2. The only reason you remember the "intense dream", which you were having at that moment of waking up or just shortly before, is because you did wake up. Therefore, if you did not wake up, then the dreams would just come and go, or keep changing, as they do. There is no one fixed dream that lasts from first falling to sleep to first waking up.

Also, another question to ask could be if this body did just happen to stop breathing and stop pumping blood during the last "intense dream" I was having before I awoke, then would that dream even keep existing anyway?

Although I like the intriguing idea about does the last thought last eternally? My answer would be I doubt it, because who is there existing consciously to be aware of that thought?

If, however, the last thought within a body was expressed to "others" as the body stopped breathing and pumping blood, then that last thought could be kept alive, through other conscious people, in the afterlife of that thinking body. Whether that is 'eternally' or not is another matter.

To me, the afterlife is in relation to life collectively and NOT at all to individuality nor separately anyway. So, considering this in relation to the life after a body stops pumping blood and breathing is not important. To me, there is obviously NO more thinking at all in a body where there is a brain that is NOT capable of thinking.

Thinking, wondering, and only being concerned about the afterlife in relation to one's own personal self, and their own life and well being, is just a learned, greedy phenomena anyway which has detracted away from the real and true intention and meaning of the word afterlife.

BigQuestioner
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:07 pm

Re: Our Natural Eternal Consciousness: A Timeless Remnant in the Disembodied Mind

Post by BigQuestioner » Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:55 pm

Age wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 12:57 am
Hypotheses 2 is an intriguing idea, of which i had not invisioned before, but, hypotheses 2 can also only be verified after death, which would also be impossible, correct?
Section 4.2 in the referenced article discusses Testability, i.e., the verification and falsification, of the theory of a natural eternal consciousness (NEC). Actually, if one accepts the fact that you are only aware of that which you perceive of within your discrete moments of consciousness, then testing need only verify (or falsify) the following: after the final conscious moment before death the brain does not (or cannot) in anyway make a dying person conscious of their death (just has it does not make you conscious of when you fall asleep or pass out with general anesthesia).
Age wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 12:57 am
When waking up after an intense dream one could ask the question; "Suppose I had never woke up?" But the answer to that would NEVER verify hypotheses 2, for two very simple reasons:
1. You did wake up. So any answer given would just be a guess, and thus nothing confirmable.
2. The only reason you remember the "intense dream" [my emphasis], which you were having at that moment of waking up or just shortly before, is because you did wake up. ...
Remembering an intense dream, i.e., memory, does not play a role in the NEC. The key to understanding the NEC is to remain in the frame of reference of the dying person. You have just experienced the final moment of, let's say, an intense dream (could have been an NDE). It is the last moment you will ever experience. This moment encapsulates the experience that is the intense dream at a point in time. It includes your "self." Then what? You forever enter timelessness. Absolutely nothing, no conscious next moment, ever happens to make you aware that the experience is over or has even been paused--no "The End," no indication that you've entered timelessness (There never has been throughout your whole life.), or no message that "You are now dead." The nearer to death that you are the more likely your brain is incapable of producing a conscious moment in order to deliver such a message.
Age wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 12:57 am
Also, another question to ask could be if this body did just happen to stop breathing and stop pumping blood during the last "intense dream" I was having before I awoke, then would that dream even keep existing [my emphasis] anyway?
"existing"? Not materially, i.e., not via brain cells or electrical pulses, but in your consciousness, "Yes, it is timeless."
Age wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 12:57 am
Although I like the intriguing idea about does the last thought last eternally? My answer would be I doubt it, because who is there existing [my emphasis] consciously to be aware of that thought?
"existing" again implies a time span. Remember, the NEC is timeless. No, you are not there over time to be aware of it. You are aware of the an experience at a time t and you are just never aware that it has ended.
Age wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 12:57 am
Thinking, wondering, and only being concerned about the afterlife in relation to one's own personal self, and their own life and well being, is just a learned, greedy phenomena anyway which has detracted away from the real and true intention and meaning of the word afterlife.
Here we agree except I would replace "the word afterlife" with simply "life."

I very much appreciate your comments and hope you will carefully read the referenced article if you have not already.

Age
Posts: 3573
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Our Natural Eternal Consciousness: A Timeless Remnant in the Disembodied Mind

Post by Age » Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:56 pm

BigQuestioner wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:55 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 12:57 am
Hypotheses 2 is an intriguing idea, of which i had not invisioned before, but, hypotheses 2 can also only be verified after death, which would also be impossible, correct?
Section 4.2 in the referenced article discusses Testability, i.e., the verification and falsification, of the theory of a natural eternal consciousness (NEC). Actually, if one accepts the fact that you are only aware of that which you perceive of within your discrete moments of consciousness, then testing need only verify (or falsify) the following: after the final conscious moment before death the brain does not (or cannot) in anyway make a dying person conscious of their death (just has it does not make you conscious of when you fall asleep or pass out with general anesthesia).
But just as the last moment of consciousness does not remain when or after one falls asleep or passes out with general anesthesia so to would the last moment of consciousness not remain after, what you call, "death". Therefore, the final conscious moment would naturally not be an eternal consciousness. Personal consciousness ends with "death".
BigQuestioner wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:55 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 12:57 am
When waking up after an intense dream one could ask the question; "Suppose I had never woke up?" But the answer to that would NEVER verify hypotheses 2, for two very simple reasons:
1. You did wake up. So any answer given would just be a guess, and thus nothing confirmable.
2. The only reason you remember the "intense dream" [my emphasis], which you were having at that moment of waking up or just shortly before, is because you did wake up. ...
Remembering an intense dream, i.e., memory, does not play a role in the NEC. The key to understanding the NEC is to remain in the frame of reference of the dying person.
Okay, I am remaining in the frame of reference of the dying person. But doing this is to just remain/freeze in the frame of reference of ANY moment of ANY "living" person. Remaining or freezing in any moment will not give an accurate picture of Reality. There is NO non-changing frame of reference.
BigQuestioner wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:55 pm
You have just experienced the final moment of, let's say, an intense dream (could have been an NDE). It is the last moment you will ever experience.
Just because there will obviously be a last moment you will ever experience that in no way infers that that moment will be naturally, nor unnaturally, eternal.
BigQuestioner wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:55 pm
This moment encapsulates the experience that is the intense dream at a point in time.
Maybe so, but this does not lead to a conclusion of it lasting eternally, well for me anyway.
BigQuestioner wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:55 pm
It includes your "self." Then what? You forever enter timelessness.
I think you are jumping to a conclusion before evidence has been shown.
BigQuestioner wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:55 pm
Absolutely nothing, no conscious next moment, ever happens to make you aware that the experience is over or has even been paused--no "The End," no indication that you've entered timelessness (There never has been throughout your whole life.), or no message that "You are now dead."
But there is also no 'you', in a sense, anymore anyway. If there is no conscious thing in a physical body, then although there is no conscious next moment this does not entail that the last conscious moment lasts eternally.
BigQuestioner wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:55 pm
The nearer to death that you are the more likely your brain is incapable of producing a conscious moment in order to deliver such a message.
This still does not prove that any last conscious moment remains frozen forever.

Also, who/what is the 'you', which you say has a brain?

If, and when, 'you' understand this fully, then what I am pointing out will be fully understood also.
BigQuestioner wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:55 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 12:57 am
Also, another question to ask could be if this body did just happen to stop breathing and stop pumping blood during the last "intense dream" I was having before I awoke, then would that dream even keep existing [my emphasis] anyway?
"existing"? Not materially, i.e., not via brain cells or electrical pulses, but in your consciousness, "Yes, it is timeless."
The words "your consciousness" implies there is an owner. So, again who and/or what are you saying is the 'you' in which you imply has its own consciousness?

If there is not brain cells or electrical pulses, then where does this 'consciousness', of which you speak, exist exactly?

When you say, "Our Natural Eternal Consciousness", are you saying there is just One Consciousness only, or are you saying there are different and/or separate consciousnesses within different and separate human bodies?
BigQuestioner wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:55 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 12:57 am
Although I like the intriguing idea about does the last thought last eternally? My answer would be I doubt it, because who is there existing [my emphasis] consciously to be aware of that thought?
"existing" again implies a time span. Remember, the NEC is timeless.
What I remember is you are 'trying to' argue that the last conscious moment before the, so called, "death" of a human body is a moment of consciousness that will naturally last eternally. But I have yet to see any evidence that this has been verified. If the truth be known I see this could be falsified much more easily than it could be verified.

Our Natural Eternal Consciousness (NEC), to me anyway, IS timeless. This is just obvious. But the way you are 'trying to' argue for it actually falsifies it.
BigQuestioner wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:55 pm
No, you are not there over time to be aware of it. You are aware of the an experience at a time t and you are just never aware that it has ended.
But the 'you' is also NOT aware of that experience anymore either. 'you' are NOT timeless, so 'you' could never be aware of an experience at any time t.

There is a Thing, which is timeless and is Aware of any and ALL experiences, but that Thing is certainly not the 'you/person'. This Consciousness is just naturally eternally NOW, or timeless.
BigQuestioner wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:55 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 12:57 am
Thinking, wondering, and only being concerned about the afterlife in relation to one's own personal self, and their own life and well being, is just a learned, greedy phenomena anyway which has detracted away from the real and true intention and meaning of the word afterlife.
Here we agree except I would replace "the word afterlife" with simply "life."

I very much appreciate your comments and hope you will carefully read the referenced article if you have not already.

BigQuestioner
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:07 pm

Re: Our Natural Eternal Consciousness: A Timeless Remnant in the Disembodied Mind

Post by BigQuestioner » Sat Nov 09, 2019 5:03 pm

Age wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:56 pm
But just as the last moment of consciousness does not remain when or after one falls asleep or passes out with general anesthesia so to would the last moment of consciousness not remain after, what you call, "death".
Sure it remains! It is always there when you wake up, though as the referenced article states in section 4.2:
Important to note is that this last moment is often overwhelmed by initial awake events and readily forgotten, particularly when last experiences are mundane, as in falling asleep in one’s bed as intended. Nevertheless, the permanency of the last present moment in the mind, cognitively and deceptively (versus materially), through periods of timelessness, including those ending in death, can and should be scientifically verifiable (or falsifiable) by future neurological and/or psychological studies.
Age wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:56 pm
Okay, I am remaining in the frame of reference of the dying person. But doing this is to just remain/freeze in the frame of reference of ANY moment of ANY "living" person. Remaining or freezing in any moment will not give an accurate picture of Reality. There is NO non-changing frame of reference.
??? What I meant by " remaining in the frame of reference of the dying person" is to put yourself in this frame of mind, i.e., you are dying and near-death. In this frame of mind, "freezing in any moment" will give you an accurate picture of what will be to you "Reality." I stated in my post "admittedly, survival is illusory."
Age wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:56 pm
Just because there will obviously be a last moment you will ever experience that in no way infers that that moment will be naturally, nor unnaturally, eternal.
It will be naturally and deceptively eternal from the perspective of you, the dying person, because you will never experience another moment that will make you aware that the experience is over. Again, with the NEC "survival is illusory."
Age wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:56 pm
But there is also no 'you', ...
Your concept of "you" is part of that last conscious moment. And again, your last conscious moment is deceptively eternal, but only to you, the dying person. It is not eternal in reality, i.e., in the material reality of the living.
BigQuestioner wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:55 pm
The nearer to death that you are the more likely your brain is incapable of producing a conscious moment in order to deliver such a message.
Age wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:56 pm
This still does not prove that any last conscious moment remains frozen forever.

Also, who/what is the 'you', which you say has a brain?

If, and when, 'you' understand this fully, then what I am pointing out will be fully understood also.
It is timelessly "frozen" in your consciousness because you, the dying person, perceived it, and there will never be an "Undo"--i.e., another conscious moment to transplant it as the present or a span of time in which it can be forgotten, i.e., erased from your memory.

Again, "you" are the dying person. I don't get your last sentence.
Age wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:56 pm
When you say, "Our Natural Eternal Consciousness", are you saying there is just One Consciousness only, or are you saying there are different and/or separate consciousnesses within different and separate human bodies?
Wow! Sorry, but I didn't think the "Our" would cause such a problem. By "Our" I meant each of us as human beings. Maybe I should change it to "Your."

The remainder of your comments and questions I hope I've made somewhat irrelevant by my explanations above or hope they are made irrelevant by the the referenced article, which I am still not sure you have read.

Age
Posts: 3573
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Our Natural Eternal Consciousness: A Timeless Remnant in the Disembodied Mind

Post by Age » Sat Nov 09, 2019 9:56 pm

BigQuestioner wrote:
Sat Nov 09, 2019 5:03 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:56 pm
But just as the last moment of consciousness does not remain when or after one falls asleep or passes out with general anesthesia so to would the last moment of consciousness not remain after, what you call, "death".
Sure it remains! It is always there when you wake up, though as the referenced article states in section 4.2:
EVERY time 'you' wake up, is the first conscious moment the EXACT same as when you fell asleep?

If it is for 'you', then just so you are aware, it is NOT for me.
BigQuestioner wrote:
Sat Nov 09, 2019 5:03 pm
Important to note is that this last moment is often overwhelmed by initial awake events and readily forgotten, particularly when last experiences are mundane, as in falling asleep in one’s bed as intended. Nevertheless, the permanency of the last present moment in the mind, cognitively and deceptively (versus materially), through periods of timelessness, including those ending in death, can and should be scientifically verifiable (or falsifiable) by future neurological and/or psychological studies.
Just as important to note is you BELIEVE wholeheartedly that the last moment before "death" is permanent.

Now three questions for you;
1. Why is it so important to you that it is true?
2. If it is at all true, then who cares?
3.What would it matter or affect if it was at all true.
BigQuestioner wrote:
Sat Nov 09, 2019 5:03 pm

??? What I meant by " remaining in the frame of reference of the dying person" is to put yourself in this frame of mind, i.e., you are dying and near-death. In this frame of mind, "freezing in any moment" will give you an accurate picture of what will be to you "Reality." I stated in my post "admittedly, survival is illusory."
What you seem to keep forgetting is that there is NO 'you' at all, for there to be a "Reality".

As I have said, just because there is a 'last' "moment" this in no way infers that it would be or even could be a frozen moment forever more.

For any 'moment' to be frozen, or timeless, then there needs to be a conscious being. For there to be proof of a conscious being after it has "died" then a conscious being needs to experience its own "death", which the possibility of this would be obvious to some. Unless of course you have some other way and examples of how any study could be done of a conscious being, which is "dead", and thus literally NOT conscious anymore.
BigQuestioner wrote:
Sat Nov 09, 2019 5:03 pm

It will be naturally and deceptively eternal from the perspective of you, the dying person, because you will never experience another moment that will make you aware that the experience is over. Again, with the NEC "survival is illusory."
Again there is NO 'you' to be aware of ANY thing anymore, which includes the last moment.
BigQuestioner wrote:
Sat Nov 09, 2019 5:03 pm

Your concept of "you" is part of that last conscious moment.
But there is NO 'one' anymore to have a concept of 'you'.
BigQuestioner wrote:
Sat Nov 09, 2019 5:03 pm
And again, your last conscious moment is deceptively eternal, but only to you, the dying person. It is not eternal in reality, i.e., in the material reality of the living.
A 'dying person' is NOT eternal. A 'dying person' only exists until it is NOT conscious anymore. When a conscious person stops existing then this 'one' is NOT conscious anymore,. So, obviously there is also NO moment being conceived of nor being conscious of anymore as well.
BigQuestioner wrote:
Sat Nov 09, 2019 5:03 pm



It is timelessly "frozen" in your consciousness because you, the dying person, perceived it, and there will never be an "Undo"--i.e., another conscious moment to transplant it as the present or a span of time in which it can be forgotten, i.e., erased from your memory.
This one is NOT conscious anymore in the present If there is NOT a conscious one anymore, then there is obviously NO 'conscious moment' at all. If there is NO conscious moment, then obviously there could NOT be a frozen nor timeless conscious moment.
BigQuestioner wrote:
Sat Nov 09, 2019 5:03 pm
Again, "you" are the dying person. I don't get your last sentence.
This is because you do NOT yet FULLY understand who and what the 'you' is yet. Unless, of course, you can show and prove otherwise.
BigQuestioner wrote:
Sat Nov 09, 2019 5:03 pm

Wow! Sorry, but I didn't think the "Our" would cause such a problem. By "Our" I meant each of us as human beings. Maybe I should change it to "Your."

The remainder of your comments and questions I hope I've made somewhat irrelevant by my explanations above or hope they are made irrelevant by the the referenced article, which I am still not sure you have read.

BigQuestioner
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:07 pm

Re: Our Natural Eternal Consciousness: A Timeless Remnant in the Disembodied Mind

Post by BigQuestioner » Sun Nov 10, 2019 2:36 pm

In respond to Age: As I stated in my original post, "Hypothesis 2 has hitherto been overlooked, likely because of the orthodoxies of [Hypothesis] 1 ... and the difficulty for the living to view death strictly from the dying person's frame of reference, i.e., only that which is perceived by the dying." Based on your latest reply, you seem to exhibit the difficulty mentioned and desire to cling to Hypothesis 1 and you give no indication that you have even read the referenced article. My explanations have not seemed to have helped so far, and so I feel further dialog on my part will not be worth our time and effort.

Age
Posts: 3573
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Our Natural Eternal Consciousness: A Timeless Remnant in the Disembodied Mind

Post by Age » Mon Nov 11, 2019 8:41 am

BigQuestioner wrote:
Sun Nov 10, 2019 2:36 pm
In respond to Age: As I stated in my original post, "Hypothesis 2 has hitherto been overlooked, likely because of the orthodoxies of [Hypothesis] 1 ...
Yes this is very true. Hypothesis 2 MAY have been overlooked because of hypothesis 1. But that in itself could NOT and does NOT make hypothesis 2 any more correct.
BigQuestioner wrote:
Sun Nov 10, 2019 2:36 pm
and the difficulty for the living to view death strictly from the dying person's frame of reference, i.e., only that which is perceived by the dying."
But there is NO difficultlt at all, well for me anyway, to view death strictly from the "dying" person's frame of reference.
BigQuestioner wrote:
Sun Nov 10, 2019 2:36 pm
Based on your latest reply, you seem to exhibit the difficulty mentioned and desire to cling to Hypothesis 1
Well what appears to you here is completely wrong, as I do NOT cling to any such thing.
BigQuestioner wrote:
Sun Nov 10, 2019 2:36 pm
and you give no indication that you have even read the referenced article. My explanations have not seemed to have helped so far, and so I feel further dialog on my part will not be worth our time and effort.
Well you must not have much faith in your own belief here.

If you FULLy understood what you believe is true here, then you would be able to explain it simply and easily. The way you have explained this does not, to me, appear to be verifiable.

I explained why, I also asked you three very simple clarifying questions, if you do not want to respond to them, then do not expect "others" to accept and agree with your hypothesises and beliefs here.

BigQuestioner
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:07 pm

Re: Our Natural Eternal Consciousness: A Timeless Remnant in the Disembodied Mind

Post by BigQuestioner » Mon Nov 11, 2019 2:15 pm

Age wrote:
Mon Nov 11, 2019 8:41 am
BigQuestioner wrote:
Sun Nov 10, 2019 2:36 pm
and you give no indication that you have even read the referenced article. My explanations have not seemed to have helped so far, and so I feel further dialog on my part will not be worth our time and effort.
Well you must not have much faith in your own belief here.

If you FULLy understood what you believe is true here, then you would be able to explain it simply and easily. The way you have explained this does not, to me, appear to be verifiable.

I explained why, I also asked you three very simple clarifying questions, if you do not want to respond to them, then do not expect "others" to accept and agree with your hypothesises and beliefs here.
The referenced article does the best job in explaining and presenting the case for the natural eternal consciousness (NEC) and natural afterlife. Show that you've read it by commenting on and/or questioning its explanations and claims. Then, I will be happy to respond.

Age
Posts: 3573
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Our Natural Eternal Consciousness: A Timeless Remnant in the Disembodied Mind

Post by Age » Tue Nov 12, 2019 1:50 am

BigQuestioner wrote:
Mon Nov 11, 2019 2:15 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Nov 11, 2019 8:41 am
BigQuestioner wrote:
Sun Nov 10, 2019 2:36 pm
and you give no indication that you have even read the referenced article. My explanations have not seemed to have helped so far, and so I feel further dialog on my part will not be worth our time and effort.
Well you must not have much faith in your own belief here.

If you FULLy understood what you believe is true here, then you would be able to explain it simply and easily. The way you have explained this does not, to me, appear to be verifiable.

I explained why, I also asked you three very simple clarifying questions, if you do not want to respond to them, then do not expect "others" to accept and agree with your hypothesises and beliefs here.
The referenced article does the best job in explaining and presenting the case for the natural eternal consciousness (NEC) and natural afterlife. Show that you've read it by commenting on and/or questioning its explanations and claims. Then, I will be happy to respond.
If you will not answer these three questions until I read something else, then so be it.
1. Why is it so important to you that it is true?
2. If it is at all true, then who cares?
3.What would it matter or affect if it was at all true?

By the way your hypothesises 2 makes perfect sense, and is actually verifiable and already proven true from another perspective from the one that you are 'trying to' use here.

BigQuestioner
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:07 pm

Re: Our Natural Eternal Consciousness: A Timeless Remnant in the Disembodied Mind

Post by BigQuestioner » Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:24 pm

Age wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 1:50 am
If you will not answer these three questions until I read something else, then so be it.
1. Why is it so important to you that it is true?
2. If it is at all true, then who cares?
3.What would it matter or affect if it was at all true?

By the way your hypothesises 2 makes perfect sense, and is actually verifiable and already proven true from another perspective from the one that you are 'trying to' use here.
First, if as you now state hypothesis 2 "makes perfect sense," why have you argued so against it and in the process indicated, at least to me, that you don't really understand it?

Second, why do you seem to insist on me answering your three questions before you are willing to read the referenced article? These questions are actually completely irrelevant to the topic, which is the explanation and justification of the existence of an NEC. The questions are more the concern of philosophy and religion.

Nevertheless, I will answer your questions, i.e. satisfy your curiosity on my particular thoughts on these issues, because, first, they are not answered in the referenced article (except for touching a bit on 2), and, second, I've never expressed these in writing so I take it as a challenge in composition. So ...

Q1. I never stated or indicated that it was important to me that it is true. It is not. The way I live my life will not be affected. I believe it to be true based on 1) what I've read about NDEs--proof of an afterlife (Certainly not!) vs only a hallucination before death caused by natural processes as the brain shuts down; 2) my personal experiences with sleeping, dreaming, and general anesthesia; 3) what I've read about how we perceive consciousness in discrete moments and how we perceive time; and 4) the analysis and logic presented in the reference article. Given my scientific and mathematical mindset, when I discover that something is not true,i.e., in error, that many have thought to be true--specifically here, that when we die, it will be exactly like before we were born--I feel compelled to point out the truth. Finding errors and correcting them is to me important. People should not live their whole life believing a falsehood, especially when it concerns their death.

Q2, "who cares"? I believe most people would care if their belief in what death will be like (assuming no supernatural heaven or hell) is scientifically mistaken.

Q3. "what would it matter or affect"? I believe the NEC and natural afterlife should have a big impact on philosophy and religion. After all, much has been discussed and written over the centuries assuming hypothesis 1. To me, one interesting philosophical question is: “Is it better for humans to believe in hypothesis 1 or to have to deal with the mystery of death, i.e., what one’s experience will entail assuming hypothesis 2? In a more religious vein, which is better for society, the belief that death means merely non-existence or the belief in the possibility of a timeless heaven or hell (with perhaps some accounting via nature or a God)? I read an interesting article touching on this subject a few years ago that was published in the LA Times: "Fear of vengeful gods helped societies expand" by Amina Khan. (But please note, I don't believe in a vengeful god.)

Finally, if hypothesis 2 "is actually verifiable and already proven true from another perspective," please for the sake of truth don't keep it to yourself. I for one would like to know what you have in mind.

Age
Posts: 3573
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Our Natural Eternal Consciousness: A Timeless Remnant in the Disembodied Mind

Post by Age » Wed Nov 13, 2019 7:28 am

BigQuestioner wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:24 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 1:50 am
If you will not answer these three questions until I read something else, then so be it.
1. Why is it so important to you that it is true?
2. If it is at all true, then who cares?
3.What would it matter or affect if it was at all true?

By the way your hypothesises 2 makes perfect sense, and is actually verifiable and already proven true from another perspective from the one that you are 'trying to' use here.
First, if as you now state hypothesis 2 "makes perfect sense," why have you argued so against it and in the process indicated, at least to me, that you don't really understand it?
Because I write in a way to determine how open or not people REALLY are.
BigQuestioner wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:24 pm
Second, why do you seem to insist on me answering your three questions before you are willing to read the referenced article?
I could have asked the exact same question to you. Why do you seem to insist on me reading your many worded referenced article before you are willing to just answer my three little simple questions?
BigQuestioner wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:24 pm
These questions are actually completely irrelevant to the topic, which is the explanation and justification of the existence of an NEC. The questions are more the concern of philosophy and religion.
If the so called "nec" is already explained AND justified, then so be it.

The change for human beings has already taken place, without much difference, from my perspective.
BigQuestioner wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:24 pm
Nevertheless, I will answer your questions, i.e. satisfy your curiosity on my particular thoughts on these issues, because, first, they are not answered in the referenced article (except for touching a bit on 2), and, second, I've never expressed these in writing so I take it as a challenge in composition.
Pity you could not have taken up the challenge in composition of explaining your hypothesis in more detail here also.
BigQuestioner wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:24 pm
So ...

Q1. I never stated or indicated that it was important to me that it is true. It is not. The way I live my life will not be affected. I believe it to be true based on 1) what I've read about NDEs--proof of an afterlife (Certainly not!) vs only a hallucination before death caused by natural processes as the brain shuts down; 2) my personal experiences with sleeping, dreaming, and general anesthesia; 3) what I've read about how we perceive consciousness in discrete moments and how we perceive time; and 4) the analysis and logic presented in the reference article. Given my scientific and mathematical mindset, when I discover that something is not true,i.e., in error, that many have thought to be true--specifically here, that when we die, it will be exactly like before we were born--I feel compelled to point out the truth. Finding errors and correcting them is to me important. People should not live their whole life believing a falsehood, especially when it concerns their death.

Q2, "who cares"? I believe most people would care if their belief in what death will be like (assuming no supernatural heaven or hell) is scientifically mistaken.

Q3. "what would it matter or affect"? I believe the NEC and natural afterlife should have a big impact on philosophy and religion. After all, much has been discussed and written over the centuries assuming hypothesis 1. To me, one interesting philosophical question is: “Is it better for humans to believe in hypothesis 1 or to have to deal with the mystery of death, i.e., what one’s experience will entail assuming hypothesis 2? In a more religious vein, which is better for society, the belief that death means merely non-existence or the belief in the possibility of a timeless heaven or hell (with perhaps some accounting via nature or a God)? I read an interesting article touching on this subject a few years ago that was published in the LA Times: "Fear of vengeful gods helped societies expand" by Amina Khan. (But please note, I don't believe in a vengeful god.)

Finally, if hypothesis 2 "is actually verifiable and already proven true from another perspective," please for the sake of truth don't keep it to yourself. I for one would like to know what you have in mind.
You have already shown that you were not open at all to what I was saying previously and from what you have written here it would probably still be the case. Anyway, from the perspective you are coming from your hypothesis 2 could not be verified. From the perspective I am talking about, at the moment, I could not yet explain it in a way that you could understand.

BigQuestioner
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:07 pm

Re: Our Natural Eternal Consciousness: A Timeless Remnant in the Disembodied Mind

Post by BigQuestioner » Thu Nov 14, 2019 11:28 pm

Age wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 7:28 am
I could have asked the exact same question to you. Why do you seem to insist on me reading your many worded referenced article before you are willing to just answer my three little simple questions?
...
Pity you could not have taken up the challenge in composition of explaining your hypothesis in more detail here also.
For the benefit of a wide audience, much time and effort has gone into explaining and arguing the case for hypothesis 2 in the referenced article, and in much better and multiple ways than I can hope to do so in the context of this forum. So, why do I need to spend my time attempting to provide you with individualized instruction? I am reminded of the student who comes to class with many comments and questions about a topic at hand, monopolizing the class discussion on an assigned reading, only for the instructor to later find out that this student has not even bothered to read one page of the assignment. Uneducated, they just like to hear themselves babble on. For me, this dialog has ended.

Age
Posts: 3573
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Our Natural Eternal Consciousness: A Timeless Remnant in the Disembodied Mind

Post by Age » Fri Nov 15, 2019 7:47 am

BigQuestioner wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 11:28 pm
Age wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 7:28 am
I could have asked the exact same question to you. Why do you seem to insist on me reading your many worded referenced article before you are willing to just answer my three little simple questions?
...
Pity you could not have taken up the challenge in composition of explaining your hypothesis in more detail here also.
For the benefit of a wide audience, much time and effort has gone into explaining and arguing the case for hypothesis 2 in the referenced article, and in much better and multiple ways than I can hope to do so in the context of this forum.
But you have not actually argued for any thing. You have only 'tried to' argue some thing, which, by the way, you just believe is true.
BigQuestioner wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 11:28 pm
So, why do I need to spend my time attempting to provide you with individualized instruction?
But you do not need to.
BigQuestioner wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 11:28 pm
I am reminded of the student who comes to class with many comments and questions about a topic at hand, monopolizing the class discussion on an assigned reading, only for the instructor to later find out that this student has not even bothered to read one page of the assignment.
And I see some one who express some thing, which they think, and believe, is true, but have not any actual evidence to back it up.
BigQuestioner wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 11:28 pm
Uneducated, they just like to hear themselves babble on.
This could be a shared perspective.
BigQuestioner wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 11:28 pm
For me, this dialog has ended.
We will have to wait and see about this.

Considering what you are proposing has no importance at all really, then I wonder why there was even any further consideration after it was first thought about?

What would it matter what the last thought was, which was inside of a human body when it stopped breathing and pumping blood?

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11983
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Our Natural Eternal Consciousness: A Timeless Remnant in the Disembodied Mind

Post by Arising_uk » Sat Nov 16, 2019 12:06 pm

So what substrate are you proposing this last experience is running on given the substrate it was running on is now non-functional?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests