Evidence of conscious existence after death.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/59/The_Near_Death_Experience_as_Evidence_for_Life_After_Death
Does this make any compelling arguments that NDEs represent continued cognition after the physical brain isn't active? In other words independence from the physical.
Does this make any compelling arguments that NDEs represent continued cognition after the physical brain isn't active? In other words independence from the physical.
Comments (217)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/586454
Agree. The clue is in the word 'Near'.
I note that this topic has been discussed previously.
So, still digging for 'evidence' and finding a PN article, written in 2006!
You are very patient :sparkle:
An old result, from Research gate.
Does anyone have more recent statistics, preferably with a broader scope?
I'm guessing belief in life after death is culturally based, deriving from religiosity. Sociology, not philosophy,
The interesting philosophical issue is the language around what it is that might survive death, especially how it could be identified with the deceased individual. The notion of soul is problematic.
There's a whole rabbit hole to go down on this forum if you're up for it:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1980/evidence-of-consciousness-surviving-the-body/p1
Also, regard the fundamentalist atheists here. Apathy, I've found, is the best response to this particular cult.
So you want an answer to something which is inevitable? We have to accept that we all have to die one day. Some would do it sooner or later than others. But do not stress yourself so much wondering what happens after all. There are even more probabilities to be noting rather than something
Don't worry, I don't :smile:
Quoting TiredThinker
Of course, philosophy is open to consider all kinds of things to all kinds of people, ideas and beliefs.
So many theories, speculations, so little time...
We need to work out how best to spend the limited time we have in whatever circumstances we find ourselves.
But to linger on the question of life after death...when there is no real evidence, that is more a matter of faith, isn't it?
You can either find comfort in that faith, or not.
If you continue to search for the answer, then I fear that you can only give yourself more stress.
More pain...
Those who wish to live long, or for eternity, do not always prosper...
You are right, quality not quantity of life is important.
Consider what that means.
What if there is not an answer after all? :chin:
Most of what we believe comes in the form of testimonial evidence. If you read a book, listen to a lecture, and even listen to a podcast, you're getting testimony from someone. You have to know how to evaluate testimonial evidence, no matter what form the testimony takes. Testimonial evidence can be very weak at times, but it can also be very strong under the right circumstances.
Most people in here haven't studied NDEs, and you can see that in their responses. There was only one person who responded to my argument with thoughtfulness, and that was @Fdrake. He responded directly to the argument. We didn't agree, but at least he took on the argument directly.
By the way, my beliefs on this subject have nothing to do with any religious ideology. I'm not religious.
Quoting TiredThinker
OK, we know about the "fuss" that the subject of NDE has produced and continues to produce. In reading this article, a question came to my mind: Well, NDE is still "Near Death Experience". What we actually need is an ADE, i.e., "After Death Experience". That would consist a much stronger if not ultimate evidence about life after death. But I don't think this is likely to happen ...
Now, there are a few other things that are used as an evidence for afterlife. One of them is regression. There's a lot of documentation of reports from patients recalling past lives. Yet, even here there's a great controversy about the authenticity and validity of these reports.
So, we always come back to point zero in this subject!
Quoting Amity
True. To "wish" for an impossibility is not logical. :nerd:
Why isn't it more plausible that these people simply had a dream?
I read your post previously, or at least the first 10 pages. It seemed to go in circles after that. I really need more than sheer number of testimonials of the experience. I need information gained from the experience that can't be gotten by a person unmoving and stuck in the room. Like for example I heard such a story of a person who had an out of body experiences and claimed to see a sneaker on the roof of the hospital, and strangely enough that was true. I like to hear more like that.
I don't know if people question more the limits of research methods available, or those doing the research and any bias they may have. Personally I have seen videos of a couple NDEs researchers that seemed completely genuine and not too zealous. Maybe even less enthusiastic than those claiming new treatments for cancer. Just very matter of fact.
I am interested in knowledge gained from the experience that is very unlikely to be gained from the individual in their state and position. It would of course be unethical to ship a person to a lab for a proper experiment if there is a better chance to save them first and foremost. It's also unethical to prove that smoking causes cancer because we have enough evidence that taking a person in good health with no cancer in the family and making them smoke is a bad idea. I don't think this type of research should be ignored because it isn't more convenient.
The testimonial evidence is evidence of the experiences.
No one seriously doubts that people have these experiences.
What's in doubt is whether they have any probative value.
I think they don't, for it seems more reasonable to think they are dreams.
Do dreams provide evidence that sleep takes us to another very disordered realm governed by quite different rules to those that apply here?
What other type of evidence are you referring to?
What does this sentence mean?
I think most people know what a typical dream would seem like? Personally my dreams are weak, not vivid, and I rarely remember them. Also entirely too many dreams about work.
Ya, I repeat myself because people don't always read what is written carefully. So, I can see why it may appear to go in circles, but there is a lot that's covered. If you don't read it, you won't get the full impact of the argument.
And, you said you read the first ten pages, if you did, then you should know it's not just about numbers. I explained this in the first couple of pages. Moreover, why would you think that it's about someone "unmoving and stuck in a room?" It's much more substantial than that, and the experiences are much more than that. I'm not going to rehash the argument in this thread, but you don't seem to understand the impact of the inductive argument.
I assumed in my argument that most people have at least read some of these experiences, so I don't get into the various experiences, other than to point out the common elements of the experiences. Many of the experiences were taken from https://www.nderf.org, so if you want to read about these experiences, this is a good place to start.
The low hanging fruit is memories of past lives. However, we can't rule out false memories, coincidences, and plain ol' lying.
One reason is, they're much different from dreams. In these experiences people are describing what's going on in the operating room, for example, in real time. They're are describing the conversations that the doctors, nurses, and other medical personal are having while their heart is stopped, and while there is no brain activity. Since when do dreams give accurate details of what's happening around you while your unconscious (there are some exceptions, but generally dreams don't give this kind of information)? Moreover, these kinds of testimonials have been corroborated over and over again. I don't think it's reasonable at all to think they are dreams. All you have to do is read 20 or 30 of these to understand this. Moreover, dreams usually occur in REM sleep, and that's not what's going on here at all. These people are in a completely different state of awareness.
If the testimonial evidence is reliable, and I believe it is based the corroboration of many of the testimonials, then when people talk about meeting their deceased parents, friends, and other family members, including seeing people they did not know had passed, this suggests that those who have passed continue to exist as themselves. This is one reason, there are other reasons, including what goes on in hospices just before people pass away.
[quote=Sagan standard]Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.[/quote]
I agree that the notion of a soul, in terms of pointing to something inner is problematic, which is why I talk about consciousness instead of a soul. However, we don't have a clear idea what consciousness is, so the question about what survives is not clear. There would have to be some continuity of consciousness, viz., memory, continuity of experience (subjective and objective experiences), etc.
Well, I already pointed out, as clearly as I could, that memories (of past lives) are hopelessly inadequate.
I mentioned past life memories for a good reason! It's the best evidence for life after death and I've demonstrated that it falls short of the mark.
If we could monitor a brain, see it fully dead, then bring it back to life, then we could test. But currently we cannot.
We can also have absolutely no scientific indication that you are anything more than your brain. At best we could say if something duplicated your brain functions, we could say "You lived on." But there's no indication of that either.
Lets think one more time. Suppose there was something that copied your brain patterns, then put it into a new body or machine. Is that really you? You're dead. That's just a copy. And if its just a copy, why would the thing that did the copying need to copy you only once, and only when you're about to die? Why not at your prime? Or multiple copies?
You will die. I will die. Everyone will die. Its an incredibly uncomfortable proposition and one that is difficult to imagine. When we die, we'll be gone. That's really all we know. And we cannot make good decisions about reality beyond what we know.
What makes something a dream has nothing to do with how vivid it is. A dream is generated by the imagination.
Dreams can also incorporate real information from the world, such as sounds.
And most of our dreams are alike. We go to a disordered place that seems to be governed by different laws of nature, yes? And we have recurring dreams of falling and being chased.
So again, do you think dream experiences are evidence that sleep takes us to another place?
And most people don't have these near death experiences. What if I almost die and I just dream of being on a bicycle made of cheese. That's not going to be recorded as a near death experience, is it? Or what if I experience nothing. Is that recorded?
Or are the only ones that are recorded and considered evidence those that have a certain content? If so then the overlap - which wouldn't count for much anyway - is artificially constructed by the fact that it is only experiences of that sort that are seen as qualifying.
:100:
First, there are plenty of NDEs where there is no sign of brain activity, where the blood has been completely drained from the brain; or, that the brain is so compromised one wonders how their having any experience, let alone hyper-experiences (more real than real). Second, your speculating about what the brain is capable of in these conditions, you don't know. It seems rather obvious that the brain is definitely in a degraded state based on monitoring procedures.
All you're doing is giving your opinions on the subject, which isn't much of a counter-argument.
By stuck in a room my emphasis is gaining knowledge from outside. If a person's body hasn't moved and they claimed an out of body experience they should be able to point out particular details from elsewhere that they hadn't been prior. https://www.nderf.org is run by Dr. Long who isn't a scientist and he relies entirely on self reporting which seems to have a very Christian bias. I'm not particular to those stories. A more international pool of people is much preferred.
Proof vs. Evidence.
That out of the way, I hope that some of us do survive death!
There is research into previous lives which seems even less scientific as a living person is referring to a dead person who can't confirm they are the same person. I'm not partial to reincarnation, but would accept it if it ended up being true.
If I was in a hospital knowing I might be in mortal danger I don't think I'd let my thought travel far from there. Seems priority to stay present and not off riding unicorns and stuff?
Do we even know if reincarnation is a thing or is compulsory? I think reincarnation and NDEs need to be studied separately.
"There is the fact our minds are indivisible and thus indestructible. And there is the fact our deaths are extremely harmful to us (which yet would not be if they ceased our existence)."
What do we know about the mind to know it isn't divisible or destructible? If we continue after death how is death harmful to the person?
Proof vs. Evidence
If the brain was fully dead you'd ultimately have nobody to talk to on the subject. But assuming those that have these experiences acquired knowledge that is too distant from their senses could that not add credibility?
Not sure what you're saying. Proof and evidence aren't dissimilar. Proof is maybe most solid in math, but I think in most science it is always a very high bar to achieve. Evidence can still be very strong for something.
If something is indivisible, then it has no parts into which it can be deconstructed. And thus it is indestructible.
And death harms us because we survive it and suffer harm. For you need to exist to be harmed. Our deaths harm us. And so we exist when we die. Death is not good for us. Even when it is rational to seek death, this will be because it is the lesser of two evils.
That's another reason to doubt near death experiences. They tend to represent death to be positive.
For example, I can remember what I ate earlier today at six o'clock, but I cannot conceive of having had another earlier experience before this one that happened at six o'clock - all i can do is recall now what i ate earlier at six o'clock. Likewise, I expect that the sun will rise tomorrow, but I cannot conceive of another experience after this one that will occur concurrently with the sun rising. All I can do is expect now that the sun will rise tomorrow.
So if "life after death" is to mean anything to me, It cannot refer to an ordered set of experiences, which is nonsensical since there is only one. So it must refer to some order of events that I can perceive, and yet I cannot conceive of the universe having an ending or a beginning, hence I cannot make sense of the question.
Ok, but what better evidence is there of an afterlife if not NDEs? What subjects of study are you focusing on? And certainly the body hurts when injured and we feel that injury, but how do we know it isn't a stubborn puppet we simply can't shed at will (although some mystics claim it is possible).
Note, good evidence is not that which would persuade most people. Most people are very stupid and do not know good evidence from their elbow. Good evidence is made of clear deliverances from our reason that we have no reason to distrust and that are widely corroborated.
Our reason is our guide to reality. It is by reason that you know you exist. It is by reason that you know you have a mind (you do not experience your mind, but rather experience by means of your mind, and so your mind's actual existence is not something experience can provide you with any direct evidence for, but only indirectly by means of what your reason tells you about experiences, namely that they cannot occur absent a mind to have them).
So, stop thinking that you have to experience something to know it. Stop thinking that sensible experiences are the ultimate evidence. They're not. Indeed, the thought that they are is itself not something that we can be sensibly aware of. So those who think - and it is the vast majority at the moment - that sensible experience is our ultimate source of evidence are the stupid people I was just talking about.
Your reason tells you that you - a mind - exists. And that same faculty of reason tells you that your mind is indivisible.
You can't have half a mind, can you? What does that even mean? (I do not mean the common phrase 'I've half a mind to...' - which means 'I have some motivation to' and is not a claim about the divisibility of the mind).
This is not some peculiar deliverance of my reason. Virtually everyone's reason says the same, including the reason of eminent reasoners such as Plato, Descartes, Berkeley and so on.
And unlike NDEs, there is nothing suspicious about such deliverances. They are widespread - for no one can conceive of half a mind - and there is no reason to doubt their probative force.
And so we have excellent evidence that our minds are indivisible. Some things must be, for not everything can be made of other things. And our minds seem to be indivisible.
And if something is indivisible, then it is simple - it has no parts. And thus it is indestructible. How does one destroy something that has no parts?
Our bodies, by contrast, are clearly divisible and will crumble away.
Thus, by a simple exercise of reason one can see - see by reason, not sense - that we will survive the destruction of our bodies.
That's a venerable argument and I know of no refutation of it.
And our reason tells us - virtually all of us - that our deaths will be harmful to us. Really harmful. But they would not be harmful to us if we did not exist. For one has to exist to be harmed. And so, once more, our reason is telling us that we will survive the destruction of our bodies.
These are good pieces of evidence. But most will consider them weak and will not be persuaded by them.
NDEs are not a source of powerful evidence. Why? Because there are more plausible alternative explanations of why some people - and it is only some - have these kinds of experience as they come close to death (and incidentally, a lot of people have them when they're not close to death).
I don't think trying to use logic can stand in place of something that can be physically demonstrated and informationally communicated.
Outside of Dr. Long's stuff, how many other near death experiences showed gained knowledge that the person having the experience couldn't possibly have had access to? I don't care if the NDEs had common features like a tunnel, things seeming "realer than real", a diety, talking to people known to be dead, etc. I am only interested in information gained that it would be a major coincidence if they'd imagined it.
Most people believe what they want. They listen to reason as a means to an their own ends and will stop listening if or when reason starts revealing truths they'd rather not obtain.
NDEs do not seem to qualify as good evidence by any sober analysis.
People have them who are not close to death, for goodness sake! They're just curious kind of dream. Or at least, that's the more reasonable thesis about them.
If you think they're good evidence, why don't you think dreams are good evidence that sleep takes us to another realm in which laws of nature operate very differently to how they do here?
SUBTOPIC: Tangible (Physical Examination) or Reproducibility
?? et al,
For the purposes of this discussion, one has to set aside the concept of "proof." It implies a next-level concept. In Physics and Metaphysics, the concept of "proof" has no immediate value.
The implied meaning to the concepts of "Near-Death Experiences" (NDE), Consciousness and Memories through Consciousness, and the injection of "After-Death Experiences" (ADE), and similar types of reports on such events, no matter how detailed they may be, provide no real value to Physics and Metaphysics without supporting Tangible Outcomes (Physical Examination) or Reproducibility Findings via processes that can be replicated or repeatedly reproduced by trusted independent experimentation and close examination.
I am sure you have all seen videos of people in white lab coats sticking some poor test subject with electrodes. It is not so dissimilar to the Electroencephalogram (EEG). This uses a contact sensor. But this rarely, if ever, actually replicates the observational distances of what was reported in the NDE/ADE.
In terms of consciousness, we can detect activity, but we cannot actually demodulate any specific signal intelligence.
We have a very good idea as to how fast the "neurons" transmit the stimulation (action potential) down "axons" to a synaptic connection to the next "neuron." This can transmit a signal at between 175-to-185 km/hr (the speed of a radio signal is 300,000,000 km/sec). We need to keep in mind that if one of these Event Reports includes imagery of some sort or an apparition or other phenomenon, then we are talking about some serious level of energy. Our knowledge today suggests that the greater the frequency of modulation, the more energy it takes. I could go on and on, but the point is: In some sense, the serious investigation is not looking for proof, but rather they are looking for unexplained "energy." And that is not something done in operating rooms today.
Now is any of this new? (RHETORICAL). No... Anyone that knows the story of Frankenstein's Monster, knows that it took a lightning strike to generate the life force. While the story of Frankenstein's Monster is about the fictional character created by Mary Shelley, in the same time period, we would see the likes of Michael Faraday (electromagnetism and electrochemistry), and James Maxwell (electromagnetic phenomenon).
Just My Simple Thought,
Most Respectfully,
R
Imagine I become brain dead and then brain alive again and I report one of these experiences. Well, it seemed to me - at the time of the report - that I was previously travelling down a tunnel. That's is, I am currently having an apparent mnemonic experience. And that experience - the experience of seeming to remember travelling down a tunnel - is occuring when I am brain alive. And so it will have some cause in the brain. And that's sufficient to explain it.
This is why the fact the brain was not working when people report having these experiences is not good evidence of anything. For what they are actually reporting is currently remembering having the experience. The brain is working when they report having the experience, and what they're actually experiencing when they give the report is an apparent memory. And that apparent memory will have a cause in the brain.
I don't think I've ever had a dream reveal anything to me that only a person located elsewhere could know. I am not interested in NDEs being similar to each other. That could be biological. It's any information that should by no means be known to the person when they come to. And as has been mentioned repeatly a NDEs may not actually represent a temporary death experience. Perhaps at best it's a psychic experience when knowledge is gained? I'm assuming you do believe in nonphysical existence?
I appreciate the input.
That's not the defining feature of a dream. Let's say that tonight I have a dream that there is a silver sixpence under the old oak tree at the bottom of my garden. Tomorrow morning I go and dig where the dream represented it to be, and low and behold there is the silver sixpence.
What does this tell me? That I wasn't dreaming?
Of course not. :roll:
Quoting Bartricks
Tbus spoke the hoi polloi! :eyes: :lol:
Half wits those who don't know that they don't know are usually the last to know.
Nothing is "harmful" to the dead. Status quo bias harms your "reason", Batshitz, causing these kind of reification fallacies.
Quoting TiredThinker
I guess it depends on what you mean by ""nonphysical" ...
I'm not among the hoi polloi. Like I say, it's Dr Bartricks to you.
Quoting 180 Proof
No, you're confusing a crap mind with half a mind. Which is sign that one has one. Not that a crap mind recognizes its own crapness. Dunning Kruger. Have you heard of the Dunning Kruger effect?
Quoting 180 Proof
The evidence builds.
You've been my favorate D-Ker for years, dude! :smirk:
Res ipsa loquitur. QED. Wassup, Doc? :rofl:
I am talking about the fact - if it is a fact - that many of those who report having near death experiences (walking towads ilghts and so on) report having remembered having them at a time when, supposedly, their brain was doing precisely nothing.
Now, one can easily explain those by simply pointing to whatever brain event is causing their apparent memory of the experience. That will suffice. One does not have to explain the experience itself, only the apparent memory of it, for that is actually all they report.
You're now talking about something else, which is out of body experiences in which people supposedly (and I believe there's no hard evidence for this) identify things they could not have identified otherwise.
Still a bit hazy about the issue, but I suggest you explore the distinction between proof and evidence; I feel like it'll be worth it.
You haven't answered my questions. My dream of the sixpence - was it a dream or not?
And do you think dreams are evidence that sleep takes us to another much more disordered realm?
Aren't NDEs often out of body experiences? If one gathers off-limits info while supposedly not in their body shouldn't that act as evidence that it wasn't as likely a dream?
What is sixpence? No I don't think typical dreams are a journey anywhere but into imagination. And I want to believe NDEs are far more than dreams.
I focus on NDEs because I think there might be more research into that than general self reported out of body experiences which might involve drug use for all I know.
Well, why do you think any differently about those in which a person dreams they came out of their body, sees a shoe on a roof, and then subsequently finds that there is one there?
But again, you are clearly someone who mistakes bad evidence for good. There's plenty of good evidence for the immateriality of the mind and good evidence that we survive our deaths (albeit it'll take us to a place worse than this one). But you will never know this until you die, for you are only convinced by sensible evidence, which by its nature is of a sort that - so long as one is here - will never provide you with evidence for an afterlife, only dreams of one. If you follow reason you can know of these things this side of death. But if only sensations convince you, then you'll not know about an afterlife until you're in it.
Which evidence is that?
It would not be a great harm if it ended one's existence as one can't be harmed if one does not exist.
Thus we continue to exist after death, else our deaths could not harm us. And the plane of existence our deaths take us to be must be considerably worse than this one, else it would not be harmful to die, but beneficial.
That's another reason to view NDEs with suspicion - they tend to represent the afterlife to be a nice place to be. Our reason tells us it will be worse than here.
Reason "represents"? that doesn't make sense to me.
Quoting Bartricks
What is "it" in this sentence?
Quoting Bartricks
I don't know what "it" above references, so I have no clue what this means.
Quoting Bartricks
This is incoherent to me, but maybe I'm missing something.
Some mental states have representative contents. Now, in a way I agree - it makes no sense to talk of a mental state representing something to be the case, for it is minds - not states of mind - that represent things to be the case.
I, for instance, am making representations to you right now. But these words are not making representations, even though I am using them to make you aware of my representations.
So, Reason is the one who is making the representations and the representations themselves are what are generated by 'our reason' (which is a faculty).
But anyway, if you're going to try and resist my case by denying that there are any representations of Reason, then you are resisting my case by resisting the very idea that there can be evidence for anything. Which is, needless to say, to admit defeat.
Quoting Noble Dust
The event of one's brain ceasing to function. No doubt death can sometimes be gradual. But instant death is harmful. Blowing one's brains out would, presumably, lead to instant death and would be singular event. That, then.
Quoting Noble Dust
So, just to be clear, you don't understand how anything can be evidence for anything and you don't understand what death is?
I don't think I can help you, to be honest. I need something to work with. Are you 1?
Yes, there's nothing incoherent about it. Perhaps you don't know what 'incoherent' means. And yes, you're definitely missing something. But if I told you what, you wouldn't understand as you're missing it.
My advice is to not disparage people if you want to grow and learn, and help other people to grow and learn. Best of luck.
This thread is about the probative value of near death experiences. And I am arguing that they have very little if any probative value, for it seems more reasonable to take them to be dreams.
There is good evidence of an afterlife. But they are not it. You asked me about that evidence, but not in good faith, I think.
Again, my advise is to not disparage your interlocutors if you want substantive discussion.
What do you mean by 'is'? Your advice is itself 'to not disparage'. That is, 'to not disparage' and your advice are one and the same? That's incoherent, I think.
Now, once more, our reason - faculty - represents (or, if you want to be needlessly pedantic, creates in us a mental state by means of which we are made aware of an apparent representation of Reason) our deaths to be harmful to us.
And by 'deaths' here is meant the discontinuation of our residence in the body.
And that representation is made by the faculties of reason of virtually everyone. So it's about as well corroborated as that 1 + 1 = 2.
And our reason also represents harm to be something that requires existence. You can't harm the non-existent.
Join the dots.
I am not familiar with this sixpense dream, but it seems a little too close to the person having the dream to give the idea that they went anywhere to learn about it, and people might lose money near a tree versus a random shoe of known color on a rooftop which is nowhere near the person.
Quoting Bartricks
What resides in the body? And where else can it reside?
My advice is to not disparage your interlocutors if you want any discussion.
It would be remarkable if, from time to time, people did not have dreams that gave them true beliefs about the world.
And there are all manner of possible explanations of this, ranging from coincidence to locked away memories being plundered during dream-time.
People have the dreams you're talking about when they're not nearing death. And some have them when they are. They're still dreams.
I don't understand why you think they're not dreams.
To quote you: :up: stopped clock.
Quoting 180 Proof
No, death itself. Fear is unpleasant, of course, but it is not what the harm of death consists in for the death of one who has no fear of dying is still harmful, is it not? Tom, who is not fearing death at all, is killed when the jet plane he is on slams into a mountain. Tom was harmed by that.
Quoting 180 Proof
Yes, death - which I would define as the point at which one is no longer here, in this realm - is harmful. And it is harmful because of where you end up.
Quoting 180 Proof
Because you still exist. Your body no longer contains you. But you still exist. That's the conclusion.
'Our faculties of reason" don't represent death to be anything at all, because we have no knowledge of it. We are afraid of death because we are afraid of the unknown, People are also afraid of annihilation which covers the two imaginable possibilities; we are either annihilated or we continue to exist in some unknown way.
People are also afraid of the suffering that may be involved in dying; pain, loss of control, loss of faculties, indignities and having to let go of what we are so attached to: life. How could we possibly know whether there is any "plane of existence" after this one, let alone that it is worse than this one?
Apparently it's only your "reason" that "tells" you all these things; I've never heard any such nonsense from anyone else. And all this from one who believes in a benevolent creator: if the creator was benevolent why would it send us to a worse plane of existence after death?
I don't know. I just know that my reason and the reason of virtually everyone else tells them that death is something to avoid.
There's a bottle of bleach in my cupboard. It says "Danger: do not drink". Now, do you think drinking it will benefit me or harm me?
:cheer:
Wisdom embodied. Always relish reading your posts.
How do you apply relish to an activity? That seems incoherent to me, or perhaps I am missing something.
Why do you need to know?
Question begging.
How?
And, without a spatiotemporally discrete body, what differentiates you from not-you?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/relish
And how can a dictionary tell me anything - how can it make representations? I do not understand. But perhaps I am missing something.
It's a link to a dictionary so you can learn about what "relish" means.
If you exist yet your body does not, then you are not your body, yes? A stopped clock only tells the right time twice a day, so let's go for the double
Find any recent data on the beliefs?
It tells you what "relish" means.
What?
Why do you need a mouth to learn what relish means?
What?
I find I am sharing your difficulties.
Now, this dictionary thingy - how can it tell me about relishes if it lacks a mouth?
Shouldn't you not be surprised that I'm supposedly having difficulty understanding you?
Is there a big literature on the harmfulness of death, Hugh?
No, on the contrary, I am now very much with you, or at least earlier you. You seem to have changed sides and now have no trouble with a dictionary making representations and it is I who finds this hard to comprehend given that the dictionary lacks a mouth.
Maybe this new you should go back and read afresh my argument and engage with it properly.
:rofl: You are a gaslighting queen, major props.
I suggest understanding our reason to be a kind of dictionary. That may help. And now you can understand what I mean when I say that our reason represents death to be a harm to us.
:rofl: You are a gaslighting queen, major props.
I'm referring to the problematic concept of personal identity over time. For the presentist, a tensed A series, such as [yesterday, now, tomorrow] doesn't move, (or rather, is unrelated to the notion of change), because those terms are understood to be indexicals that are used to point at and order present information e.g "the paper over there on the kitchen table is yesterday's newspaper"
This is in line with McTaggart, who argued that the A series can't be treated as moving, for otherwise temporal logic becomes inconsistent in allowing propositions such as "now isn't now" and "yesterday is tomorrow".
Once the A series is held fixed, such that yesterday is always yesterday, now is always now, tomorrow is always tomorrow etc, one can continue to speak of the passing of a train, but one can no longer speak of the passing of subjective time. Relative to this grammar, one can speculate about what happens in one's future, but one cannot speculate about the existence of one's future.
Descartes had a dream in which someone gave him a melon and then he had another one about a big book. He decided that it was a message from God that he had knowledge inside him that needed to give to the world and thus that he needed to give up being a soldier and devote himself to philosophy.
People are inspired by dreams all the time. And perhaps they can sometimes be a source of information. I mean, Descartes' dream gave him accurate beliefs about himself.
But that does not alter the fact that these near death experiences seem, on any sober assessment, to be dreams. That's the more reasonable thesis.
Cheers, thanks for the kind words, ND...
Quoting Bartricks
I don't know, is there? You tell me...
My advice is to not disparage your interlocutors.
It's all to do with a puzzle presented to us by Epicurus.
He thought death could not be a harm to us, for we do not exist and yet we would need to exist in order to be harmed by it. As he put, where death is, we are not, and where we are, death is not.
The puzzle is that he's obviously wrong. Virtually no philosopher accepts his conclusion. Why? Because our reason represents our deaths to be extremely harmful to us.
The puzzle is why they'd be harmful to us if they end our existence.
Cheers; apologies for not being around much. I should change that.
Is that a kind of condiment?
My advice is to not disparage your interlocutors.
My advice is to not disparage your interlocutors.
My advice is to not disparage your interlocutors.
I say no one exists without the living body. I may be wrong and you may be right. So refute my contention if you can make the case:
(A) How do "you" exist when the living body no longer exists?
(B) Without a living body distinct from every other living body, what differentiates "you" from not-you?
Simple enough. Not scared, are you? Also, if you can't make the case and this substance dualism is merely an article of faith (i.e. metaphysical first principle), then just say so. However, if you're as smart as you think you are, Dr. Bartricks, you will make the fucking case. :smile:
Now, tell me, what do you make of the advice on my bleach? It says "do not drink'. Does that imply it'll harm me or benefit me.
Engage with the argument
My advice is to not disparage your interlocutors.
I'm familiar with Epicurus' idea that we cannot be harmed by death if we are nothing when dead. We can certainly be harmed by dying though, which alone is enough to explain peoples' fears. Perhaps you could cite some works from that "vast literature" which agrees with your wacky, unreasonable views on the subject, Turdricks.
Quoting Noble Dust
I often wonder whether being around here is worthwhile; it's certainly made more worthwhile by interlocutors who are serious, open-minded and of good faith such as yourself.
Is Agent Smith talking outta his/her hat or is s/he onto something really important?
This is one argument:
1. If the annihilation of my body will be harmful to me, then I will exist when it happens
2. If I exist at the same time as my body is annihilated, then I am not my body
3. Therefore, if the annihilation of my body will be harmful to me, I am not my body
4. The annihilation of my body is harmful to me
5. Therefore, I am not my body.
1. My mind is indivisible
2. My body is divisible
3. If something is divisible it is not also indivisible
4. Therefore my mind is not my body
Thanks man. The same to you.
Eh? It's not about fear. If Tom - who has no fear of dying for he's just watching a bird eat a fly and isn't thinking about anything in particular - is shot in the back of the head, he's harmed by that.
Epicurus thought he wouldn't be harmed.
Most philosophers - including this one - think that's nuts, for it is about as clear to our reason as anything that death is harmful.
Indeed, it is more evident to reason that death is harmful than that being harmed requires existence, so if the two really are in conflict then it is the existence condition that should be rejected, not the harmfulness of death.
Yet the existence condition is very plausible - it seems self-evident to reason (not 'as' self evident as the harmfulness of death, but still powerfullly self-evident).
Hence the puzzle. Hence the vast literature.
More nonsense. :sparkle:
So again, my bottle of bleach has this written on it: danger! Do not drink. What does that imply - that drinking it will benefit me or harm me?
My reason says of death: danger, avoid dying. What does that imply about it?
I can certainly apply your extensional definition of a person to the people I meet. In which case, if I notice their body to be deconstructed I can say they are dead by definition. As an aside, how do you suggest that I should extend this definition in the case their body is reconstituted, considering the fact that the biological identity of any person is open and under-determined?
On other hand, what does it mean if I apply this definition to my own body? Does the logic still work in the same way? For I sense a person's body in relation to say my field of vision. But can I speak of sensing my field vision?
Yes, we know he's harmed by being shot, by dying, but we don't know that he is harmed by being dead.
Epicurus assumed that when we are dead we are nothing, and he was correct in concluding that is that is so, then we are not harmed by being dead.
I don't believe that most philosophers "think that's nuts" since most philosophers as far as I know ( according to some polls I've seen), don't believe in an afterlife. If you believe in an afterlife, then whether or not you believe you will be harmed by death depends on what you believe that afterlife is like. No one knows whether there is an afterlife, or whether, if there is one, it will be better or worse than this life, so no one knows whether being dead (being dead understood relative to this life) is harmful or not.
I don't have any idea why you question the obvious fact that being harmed requires existence: how could you be harmed, or anything else, if you don't exist?
The whole thing should become much clearer to you if talk, not in terms of the question of death being harmful, but in terms of the questions of dying being harmful and being dead being harmful.
They try and explain how it would harm you despite you not existing at the time. And they fail and point this out to one another.
And it isn't dying - there's no puzzle about that. It's death. Not dying. Death. Christ.
Reincarnation isn't a falsifiable hypothesis with respect to recollection of past lives due to the fact that it's compatible with both memories of past lives (good recall) and also no memories of past lives (poor/defective recall).
Reincarnation is pseudoscientific woo woo!
I have come across some ideas along the line that death is harmful in that it is a deprivation of life. I don't buy that because if there is no afterlife, then there is no one to be deprived of anything. So, I can't see any justification for thinking that being dead is a harm.
It also seems obvious that dying is likely, if not certain, to be harmful, for the reasons I have already stated. You have not attempted to address this, which makes you look like a "bad faith" or willfully blind interlocutor.
I think your confusion about this will be ameliorated if you think not of death, which can mean both dying and being dead, and instead think separately about the possible harms of dying and being dead, and the appropriate imaginable scenarios for each which would likely to be harmful. .
Yes. To articulate where I believe your position to be heading towards; reincarnation can be supplied a workable definition, e.g if someone's brain activity, as defined and measured by a particular instrument, stops for at least 10 minutes and then later continues, then science is free, if it so chooses, to define this as an instance of "reincarnation". Such a definition can then be used when testing a hypothesis that a given subject has 'reincarnated'.
The problem then, isn't so much that reincarnation cannot be defined so as to support testable hypotheses, but the fact that with respect to any such definition a hypothesis as to whether a given subject has 'reincarnated' merely relates empirical data to the definitional criteria, and says nothing in support of , or in opposition to, the metaphysical reality of the said definition.
The same problem exists when deciding whether a subject is self-identical within a single biological lifetime. So hypothesis testing cannot lend support to either the view that two subjects are identical, or to the view that they are different, except in the trivial and tautological sense pertaining to linguistic convention..
SUBTOPIC: Reincarnation isn't a falsifiable hypothesis
?? et al,
The implications of reincarnation open the door to some very many questions that cannot be tested in a manner consistent with the Scientific Method. (ie. a falsifiable hypothesis)
What is "being reincarnated" actually mean? Is it some aspect of a previous intelligence, a knowledge of past historical events, an understanding of things that cannot be known?
IF reincarnation implies a detailed knowledge of past events,
What is it we are discussing? Is it simply that some person says they remember the past life (or lives)? Is this person some form of "host" to an energy form that has the capacity to replicate all the processes that would be necessary to perform these various functions? What are our base assumptions?
Respectfully,
R
was reincarnation ever supposed to be testable by science? because from what Eastern philosophy i have read, it certainly doesnt seem like it to me, seems like a bit of a way to just sweep the discussion under the rug and hope no one lifts it up ever again anyways
Quoting Rocco Rosano
the general and overall idea at least within Hinduism pertaining to reincarnation, is that the body is nothing more than a shell that houses an eternal and immutable force of sorts (the atm?n) that never perishes once the body dissolves and ceases functioning, the atm?n is also the director of the entire body, and without it there is no life within the body from the senses to the rational intellect. implicit assumptions i guess would be the existence of the non-physical and us being more than the brain-body dichotomy, also apparently upon reincarnating into another body, to avoid clinging and attaching to your old lives, memories etc. this is all supposed to be washed away and forgotten as this soul inhabits another body, people recalling past lives and the like could either be exceptions to this function, delusional, or it could genuinely be something, its supposed to be exceedingly rare. (i honestly havent cared to look into it too much) the conscious memory that one carries with this life is supposed to perish alongside the body. what is left over from these reincarnations are known as karma vasanas which apparently influence your behavior(s) in the next life, iirc this is where Ian Stevenson (reincarnation researcher) took particular interest, because he thought it had the ability to explain different phobias and even random talents from people that seemingly had no obvious explanation for it.
as far as i have read, the atm?n is by default non-spatiotemporal naturally if there is no beginning and it is eternal, this puts it out of the reach of science, the closest thing we can get to any sort of evidence are testimonies from people who allege to recall past lives, this is obviously inextricably of a subjective nature and is therefore not testable or able to be codified into a sort of hypothesis which science seeks out to do because subjectivity is of an experiential and private nature, this is what opens it up to skepticism and eye-brown raising, as a lot of things are in these types of matters it seems like it is a matter of faith or a sort of knowledge that you come to by practicing different rituals and forms of meditation to come to an understanding of this concept. (purportedly by said practitioners) forcing the Western physicalist paradigm within this framework such as talking about the conservation of energy or the first law of thermodynamics etc is not what was taught in Buddhist and Hinduist schools of thought alike. thats pretty much all i got.
You'll note, I wasn't the only one who did not understand your cryptic comment.
What does the expression 'find out what life is' mean? Please clarify. Then maybe we will understand what the next part - 'then the answer will be obvious' means.
Again, the evidence that death is harmful is that our reason represents it to be. Why do you think that philosophers try and explain the harmfulness of death otherwise?
And it isn't about dying. Lots of things are harmful and their harmfulness can be explained.
Death - the point at which one is no longer here - is the event whose harmfulness is self-evident yet hard to explain (or hard to explain if we are no longer anywhere).
Pointing out that something else is harmful is just ignorant and off topic. It's like saying "but being punched is harmful. So there".
Death is self-evidently harmful. And that's not just my reason making such representations, it's everyone's including yours - it's why you try and avoid it, yes?
And it also seems self-evident that you need to exist in order to be harmed.
Hence if one dogmatically thinks that we cease to exist altogether at death, one has a problem.
Hence the literature.
But you don't have a problem if you just follow reason, for then you conclude that death does not cease our existence, but rather transfers us into a worse plane of existence.
See?
What world would we live in in which a person would suggest someone drink bleach to their benefit? Lol.
I'll try one last time to explain the way I see it and if you don't respond to that, but to something of your own fabrication, or just keep repeating the same baseless assertions, then I won't waste more time.
We see death as harmful because it forcibly removes us from what we love, or are at least attached to.
WE see death as harmful because we fear it will annihilate us, and we don't wish to be annihilated.
We see death as harmful because dying is most likely to be painful and humiliating, even if just in terms of the loss of control it involves. It doesn't matter if the control we thought we enjoyed was illusory.
We see death as harmful because we don't know what being dead involves (if anything) and we fear the unknown.
Being dead, though, cannot be harmful if being dead is not being anything..If being dead is being in a worse situation than we were in while alive, then death is harmful, to be sure, but we don't know that.
Respond directly to these points, criticize them all you like with counterarguments if you have any, or I'm done bothering with you.
This is strange. I told you I don't know what the sentence means. I was very clear. I would have thought that this is your que to elaborate and maybe express the same idea in more words to give it some nuance. If you are unable to do this I'm happy to move on.
I assume you agree that the warning on the bleach implies that drinking it will harm the drinker? I mean the answer is so obvious that only someone on this site would dispute it.
It's yes.
And that's the label our reason puts on death. So it is reasonable to conclude that death will be an immense harm to us.
Yet it wouldn't be harmful if it ended our existence. For what does not exist cannot be harmed.
Thus, the conclusion that follows is that our deaths will not end our existence. We will survive our deaths. It won't be nice, but we'll survive them.
Our bodies know pain whether it is the end of all for us, or just the beginning.
No, we see it as harmful because our reason represents it to be. That's why there's a big debate about the harmfulness of death in philosophy.
And to be clear, you are stating that death is actually not a harm.
So, killing someone doesn't harm them, yes - that's your view?
You're welcome to resist my argument by adopting such a silly view. It means you lose.
I don't know what that means.
If reason represents death to be a harm, then there must be a reason for that representation; so what is that reason? Why does reason represent death to be a harm?
You just keep coming back with the same assertion, and you haven't even attempted to address with counterarguments any of the explanations I gave for people thinking that they will be harmed by death.
I haven't said that. Of course killing someone harms them. Even if there is no pain involved it deprives them of life.They are harmed in the act of being killed. Of course once they are dead, if they cease to exist, then there is no longer anyone to be deprived of anything, but that doesn't change the fact that you harmed the person in the act of killing them.
Try addressing your interlocutors' actual arguments instead of behaving like a shit-stain, Browntracks. :roll:
So, just to be clear, your view is now that death does harm the one who dies? It's just that earlier you said the precise opposite.
Here was my argument:
1. If death harms the one who dies, then the one who dies must exist at the time
2. Death harms the one who dies
3. Therefore, the one who dies exists at the time.
You now accept that premise 2 is true.
So if you're remotely logical, you must now accept my conclusion or deny that one needs to exist in order to be harmed.
One is still existing in the act of dying or being killed. I haven't said that being dead is a harm: how could we know, since none of us have been there?
You're trading on a conflation between dying and being dead
1. If dying harms the one who dies, then the one who dies must exist at the time
2. Dying harms the one who dies
3. Therefore, the one who dies exists at the time (of dying).
There: fixed for you. And it is uncontroversial.
1. If being dead harms the one who is dead, then the one who is dead must exist at the time
2. Being dead harms the one who is dead
3. Therefore, the one who is dead exists at the time.
In this form the argument tells us nothing about whether the dead person exists, so whether the argument is sound or not depends on that big "if" in the first premise. The alternative argument is:
1. If being dead harms the one who is dead, then the one who is dead must exist at the time
2. Being dead does not harm the one who is dead
3. Therefore, the one who is dead does not exist at the time.
Both valid arguments, both of which cannot be sound, the determination of which is sound depends on knowledge we do not possess.
No, it is 'death' not 'being dead' that I am talking about. Christ, I just don't think you're mentally capable of following an argument.
You need to deny a bloody premise of the argument. WHich one? Don't say "ooo, I can't....so here's a different stupid argument that I made up and isn't relevant and that I want to talk about instead".
Which premise in MY argument do you deny, Hugh?
it has to be 1, doesn't it hugh? Because you think 2 is correct. Or has something flashy gone past the window and distracted you? So make an argument against 1.
Premise one is undeniable: as it is in the form of "if...then". It is premise two, and the conclusion that follows from it which may or may not be sound depending on whether by "death" you mean dying or being dead; in the former case it will be sound, and in the latter may be sound or unsound depending on whether there is existence following death. Has it penetrated your thick skull yet?
Not at all. Dubious assumptions / distinctions simply undermined his conclusions (e.g. substance dualism, pineal gland, machine animals). Algebriac geometry, however, is genius though. :nerd:
:razz:
Er, what? Is it feeding time in the fishtank? Shall I remind you of the argument? Here it is:
Quoting Bartricks
You think 2 is true. Here you are thinking it is true: Quoting Janus
So, that means you have to deny 1, doesn't it?
Where's your argument that 1 is false, Hugh?
:100:
Very nicely broken down, a complete waste of time with Bart but very nicely put.
Here's my argument:
Quoting Bartricks
That's valid and sound.
Here's a different argument:
1. If DIngo Jones had any training in philosophy whatsoever, then he'd know that you need to address the argument a person made, not a totally different one of your own invention
2. Dingo Jones does not know that you need to address the argument a person made, and not a totally different one of your own invention
3. THerefore Dingo jones has no training in philosophy whatsoever.
Do you see how the soundness (and it is sound, isn't it?) of that argument has nothing whatsoever to do with the soundness of the other?
In a quite brilliant move Hugh defeated Bartricks in the dual by absorbing the bullet Bartricks fired at him with his own head. Dingo clapped and clapped. "Excellent work Hugh! And spilling your brains all over him was a nice touch too!"
There's no fallacy committed by my argument, Dingy.
Quoting Bartricks
That's valid.
And the great Hugh, that master of logic, thinks that premise 2 is true and that 1 is true and that 3 is false. How he does that, I really do not know - that's his great skill! Watch in amazement as the great Hugh believes another contradiction. How does he do it? Is it done with mirrors? Does he have a hidden premise up his sleave? Gather round as Batricks gives him valid argument after valid argument and Hugh accepts the premises and rejects the conclusions. No one else can do it quite like he can.....
A personal name with Germanic origins.
Meaning: heart, mind!
Compare Xin, also heart-mind in Chinese!
Muchas gracias!
That's for sure.
There's also a few of the usual overbearing posters commenting from the grave about their knowledge of it.
SUBTOPIC: Reincarnation isn't a falsifiable hypothesis
?? Ignance, et al,
(PREFACE)
I was I'm my "Principle of Sufficient Reason" (PSR) mode when I spoke (seriously) of the "implications" when opening consideration of reincarnation, and assigning it some level of validity.
There is an undefined relationship between the Faith-Based Concept (F-BC) of "reincarnation" and the potential reality of reincarnation on the Metaphysical level.
Such an argument on the F-BC opens with the implied "divine source." Whereas the Metaphysical approach starts with the deductively valid methodology.
[reply="Ignance"]
Ignance quoted you in Evidence of conscious existence after death.
was reincarnation ever supposed to be testable by science? because from what Eastern philosophy i have read, it certainly doesnt seem like it to me, seems like a bit of a way to...
(COMMENT)
The deductively valid methodology of combing through each scientific lead until either the PSR strongly suggests a specific line of inquiry is leading to a biological, chemical, or physics/cosmological solution. - OR - The pursuit of each lead strongly suggests an energy of supernatural origin is the reasonable solution by means of "Sufficient Reason."
In such pursuits, an unusual linkage opens up that is not examined all that often. In ordinary Scientific and Metaphysical approaches, implication has a much greater spectrum in its meanings. This becomes important in the greater understanding of reasoning within the constraints of communication of all kinds. Reincarnation, in this regard, raises implications concerning the information. Normally we think that "truth" is universal everywhere in the universe; that 1+1=2 (Base 10) everywhere.
Respectfully,
R
So, do you think that the only people who know about cancer are those who have it? That's the same reasoning, is it not? That to know about cancer, one has to have it.
Yet obviously one can know a lot about cancer without having it. Indeed, someone can know far more about cancer and not have it than someone who has it. It would be foolish to only seek advice on how to treat cancer from those who have had it. (One - one - way to acquire some knowledge about cancer is to have it - and that's also a way of acquiring knowledge about what happens to us after death...one can die...but it is absurd to suppose that's the 'only' way).
There is no reason at all to think that only those who have died know what happens after death, just as there is no reason at all to think that only those who have cancer know about cancer.
The arguments I have provided for life after death are sound. Certainly no one here has raised any kind of reasonable doubt about their soundness (or even seems to know how to set about doing that). if those arguments are indeed sound, then I know what happens to us after death. I haven't died. Yet I know what happens to us: we go to a worse place. For if my arguments are sound then that is indeed what happens to us - and so my belief is true - and I have acquired it in the right manner (by reason rather than by luck).
Compare that to someone who has a near death experience, actually does have an accurate experience of the afterlife, yet when they are revived they consider it a dream. Well, that person has actually experienced the afterlife, yet they do not know what happens to them after death.
So a person can die and not know what happens to them after death, and a person can not die and know what will happen to them after death.
:up:
I don't understand what you mean. It doesn't seem to connect with anything I have said.
You don't have to experience something to know about it.
I don't think it is very reasonable to think that NDEs are veridical experiences as opposed to dreams.
But I do think that we can know that there is an afterlife.
From NDEs?
Quoting Bartricks
What does that mean? That means I think NDEs are not veridical experiences.
So, I think they're not evidence of an afterlife. I think they're evidence that people have dreams.
This may be confusing you because I believe there is good evidence for an afterlife and perhaps you think that this commits me to thinking that any argument anyone gives for an afterlife is a good argument. That is not my view.
Here's an argument for the afterlife that i also think is a very bad one: I have a pumpkin in my fridge. Therefore there is an afterlife. Now, I think that's a shite argument. I believe there is an afterlife. And I believe there is evidence for this - indeed, the evidence is the only reason I believe it. But I don't think the fact there is a pumpkin in my fridge is evidence that there is an afterlife.
So I believe there is good evidence there's an afterlife.
I believe NDEs are not good evidence there's an afterlife.
What is the evidence?
There is no beginning or end, and consciousness is a permanent fixture of the cosmos, and most likely exists as a non-local field. But if you limit your perspective to linear time, as virtually everyone does, there can't be any intellectual progression, because as it appears is certainly not as it is.
NDEs can be correlated to brain chemistry and still be indicative of a profound underlying reality. The physical world isn't distinct from the spiritual.
So you can have it either way. Either we're essentially a phantasm with no living past, or our perception of linear time is insufficient. I believe it's both. And to me, if you want to discuss the progression of consciousness through time, the time has come to address this.
You can only die in time. Where there is no time, there is no death.
Interesting. What do you mean by the progression of consciousness through time? Do you mean the evolution of human cognitive capacity across history, or something more numinous?
Quoting neonspectraltoast
How have you established this to be the case? Do you subscribe to idealism?
Quoting neonspectraltoast
Maybe for speculative mental excursions, but do we have any choice about this in what we generally call reality? Without linear time, crossing the road, setting goals, writing a letter would likely be impossible. But whether linear time is actually true or not outside of human cognitive gestalts may not be all that relevant since humans seem to have no choice but to embrace the beginning, middle and end of matters.
I wish I knew how to quote everything so I could answer more succinctly, but I don't (and these buttons are too small on my phone.)
By linear progression of consciousness I meant what becomes of consciousness after what we call death.
I won't explain how, but I have seen evidence of a living past, so let's just say I firmly believe in that, though it's a pretty well-established theory among physicists anyway, so I don't see why it so seldom pertains to discussions such as these.
I personally believe in a cosmic feedback loop where brains do produce a non-local field of consciousness that in turn creates things like brains. Outside of linear time it's all self-sufficient.
If we're always going to think in terms of our experience, there's no way we're going to cut to the truth.
But even as simply a theory of Einstein's, there should be more thought given in such discussion to the idea that all time exists at once.
This is certainly akin to what I believe, though I readily admit I have no idea what happens to consciousness after death, but I think the two are related.
As I say, I've witnessed things that cause me to believe that the past is alive and well, and I don't know...maybe better minds can wrap theirs around what consciousness is really like in relation to a block universe.
I really do think thinking in a framework of non-linear time, despite all the inherent difficulty thereof, is the path forward. And I can vaguely see how it would be self-sufficient and incorporate both physicalism and spiritualism.
I mean, it probably is true that brains generate consciousness, but that doesn't speak to how consciousness interacts with all perceived dimensions of reality, if we're to be honest. I think they are truly timeless and generate a non-local field.
But it has been too much for me to wrap my mind around. Doesn't mean it's not the way forward, though.