Matt Lambeau, Tree of Self-Evident Truth |546|

[J Randall Murphy]

See, here it is again. Subtle, but it remains.

Critical thinking and science (leaving out philosophy for my point) prove nothing more or less about afterlives than any "believer's" position. We just have to continue to be honest about this. Yes, critical thinking and science certainly prove many things people "believe" to be false. However, the afterlife question remains unaddressed by science, and I think the hard problem of consciousness remains pretty intractable as well.

Its a nit picky thing I realize, but the slippery slope is very real. Its a way of providing the high ground to one metaphysical worldview without merit. (In my view)

Well — I didn't say specifically just science did I ? I also said critical thinking and philosophy, which you've arbitrarily discarded, as if that gives your proclamation weight. It doesn't.

If a person doesn't get that the combination of science, critical thinking, and philosophy does prove ( provide a valid inference ) that afterlives as many people tend to think of them is impossible, then they just don't get it. It's not a matter of belief. It's a matter of logical deduction — deductive reasoning. That is very different than belief or faith, which has a long history of eventually being proven to be nothing more than myth and superstition.

So either people get it or they don't — probably because they don't want to, or they are wedded to a belief system that they'd have to abandon. It's probably not because they aren't intelligent enough to get it. To make progress they need to recognize that if they want to refute the argument, then they need to find logical flaws within the argument – not try to switch arguments or make counter-proclamations.

To give you some help, if afterlives are to be defined as a continuity of personhood following the death of the body, then only by being able to identify that a person in an afterlife is the same person referred to in this life, can afterlives ( as defined ) be validated. To invalidate the position that the two situations cannot be sufficiently the same to validate afterlives ( as defined ), you'd have to invalidate the role that the material plays in shaping our personhood — which includes all material variables that constitute or contribute to our identity, including our personality. Can you do that?

NOTE: The astute will notice here, that having access to an alleged afterworld is not necessary to be able to resolve this problem.

HINT: In this discussion a couple of loopholes have been identified, but they still end-up with afterlives ( as defined ) as being something else altogether.

 

[Silence]

I'm a layman in terms of these arguments, but I see both philosophy and critical thinking as birds of a feather in many ways. Incredibly useful but often unreliable. Science, while sharing this same criticism (if you will), seems a bit more solid; at least to me.

So, while I can't respond eloquently to your post my sense remains the same; your position via science, philosophy and critical thinking remains akin to a faith position. Its not "known" so to speak and you've selected a particular system to come to your conclusion (i.e., philosophy, science, and critical thinking) that is different from others (religious, experiential, revelatory, etc). None have proven their position to me at least.

But maybe I'm just note "astute". ;)

 

[Kai]

The HPC is an intellectual tool for framing the "problem of consciousness". It doesn't explain anything, but if you get it, you can look at the problem in ways you might not have considered before. Ultimately, almost anything can be framed in a similar sort of manner in order to evoke the same sort of existential problem..

Not really.
The hard problem of consciousness isn't an "intellectual tool". It's a consequence of assuming certain existentials in the fashion that materialism does. In other words, materialism created the problem which it then seeks to solve. One can of course posit hard emergence, but this is 100% non-explanatory. Soft emergence will not do the job.

On the subject of afterlife, I agree to some extent that NDEs cannot be taken as direct evidence of a continued individual existence. On the other hand, I would think it pretty far fetched to conclude that they somehow make it less likely rather than more. In broad terms, I think NDEs give significant credence to an "awareness at large" mode of consciousness which in biological life becomes constrained or fettered to a particular information processing system which we call "biology." If people can see things during NDEs that they couldn't possibly see with ordinary senses, and notwithstanding formal proof it does seem that they can, then biological seeing has to be a more convoluted version of a more basic "at large" style of seeing or knowing, which is more tightly bonded with the ground of being, or identical with it. This is what I suspect is happening in NDEs.

There is the problem of what would constitute the "membrane" around an individual in an afterlife. However, since you would emerge from life from a particular trajectory that unique history in itself might (I emphasise might) be sufficient to constitute such a membrane. Although I don't think, for example in Kastrup's terms, that your "dissociation" would be as well crystallised as it is in biological life, yet it might conceivably be enough. There is also the question of the non-temporality of apparent noumena, as witnessed by the "life review" phenomenon in its various guises.

 

[J Randall Murphy]

Not really.
The hard problem of consciousness isn't an "intellectual tool".

If that's what you think, then you don't get it.

 

[Kai]

If that's what you think, then you don't get it.

It is what I think, and ... (lol) ... I get it just fine.

Essentially there are only three possible solutions.

Soft Emergence. Hard Emergence. And Monism. Various positions try to call themselves something more fanciful, but they reduce to one of these when scratched. Hard emergence goes nowhere. Soft emergence reduces to Monism.

In my own version of neutral monism, the ground of being is an immediate precursor to consciousness but not consciousness itself. This would be one and the same as the putative "at large" consciousness I mentioned above, and which I suggest is activated (or really "disclosed" as it was never "deactivated", only entrained to space-time behaviours) by Near Death Experience.

 

[Robbedigital]

It is what I think, and ... (lol) ... I get it just fine.

Essentially there are only three possible solutions.

Soft Emergence. Hard Emergence. And Monism.

When I read these types of pontificating, I imagine a fish in a pond who has just been caught and released, going back to report to the rest of the fish what he learned about infinite time and consciousness.
Even a Near Death Experiencer will only remember the parts of their experience which can be translated by/to human thought.
Regarding possible solutions: An infinite creator could choose to run our existence on an infinite chain of linked Nintendo machines if it wanted to. Or equally plausible by a spell which magically poofed reality into existence 6000 years ago dinosaur bones and all… or 14 billion years ago (just as easily for an infinite creator)
Not trying to be contrarian, but I’m of the thinking that we humans are not much closer to understanding or encapsulating the concept of consciousness than is a fish. We’re probably a lot better at anthropomorphizing the idea. But we don’t know.

 

[J Randall Murphy]

It is what I think, and ... (lol) ... I get it just fine.

The more reasonable response would have been to ask why. But I'll give you a clue. Many things can be divided into easy problems and hard problems of the Chalmers variety. The easy problems are descriptive. The hard problems are existential. That division is what makes this particular method of categorization ( EPs vs HPs ) an intellectual tool. Though it might not provide an answer, it can help to guide us through the fog.

Chalmers uses the traffic jam analogy. I like to use an analogy I call "The pile of bricks analogy". However I won't bore you with it if you're not interested. BTW the "soft emergence" vs "hard emergence" way of looking at things is essentially the same device ( descriptive versus existential ).

Chalmers is quite adept at using this particular tool. But if you prefer not to look at it that way, it's your call. I was resistant at first too. I thought the HPC was simply rhetoric because it doesn't reveal anything we don't already know. Neither does it solve the problem. Then I saw what he was actually doing.

 

[J Randall Murphy]

Not trying to be contrarian, but I’m of the thinking that we humans are not much closer to understanding or encapsulating the concept of consciousness than is a fish. We’re probably a lot better at anthropomorphizing the idea. But we don’t know.

I think you're absolutely right on one level, and maybe not giving humans enough credit on another. For example I think that whether we happen to be a human or a fish or a bat, we can safely "encapsulate" the concept of conscious by defining it as our experience of being in the world. However explaining it on an existential level is a whole other matter. On that level, I'm beginning to think like a New Mysterian — which is pretty much along the same lines of thinking as your post. I don't particularly like this predicament — but neither do I have a solution.

 

[Robbedigital]

I think you're absolutely right on one level, and maybe not giving humans enough credit on another. For example I think that whether we happen to be a human or a fish or a bat, we can safely "encapsulate" the concept of conscious by defining it as our experience of being in the world. However explaining it on an existential level is a whole other matter. On that level, I'm beginning to think like a New Mysterian — which is pretty much along the same lines of thinking as your post. I don't particularly like this predicament — but neither do I have a solution.

He lost me at like 7 seconds, already trying to frame reality in the tiniest box possible. Something like (paraphrasing) "So, you have the brain, and inside the brain you have the mind, and the brain produces the mi...."
Nope, sorry. We don't know that. Just because you've settled YOUR simplest explanation, doesn't mean you have THE simplest explanation.

So, back to your response,
"..we can safely "encapsulate" the concept of conscious by defining it as our experience of being in the world."
No, you don't get to slap the label "consciousness" on everything that involves interaction between two entities. We have words. If you want to settle a word to describe "our experience of being in the world", then pick one or make one up. Lets let "Consciousness" be one (1) thing, and let's work toward settling it.

Also, Cause & Effect is not consciousness.. It's a principle.

 

[Kai]

The more reasonable response would have been to ask why. But I'll give you a clue. Many things can be divided into easy problems and hard problems of the Chalmers variety. The easy problems are descriptive. The hard problems are existential. That division is what makes this particular method of categorization ( EPs vs HPs ) an intellectual tool. Though it might not provide an answer, it can help to guide us through the fog.

A correct formulation of hard and soft emergence: soft emergence generates a product or outcome that is already derivable in principle from the input particulars. Hard emergence does not. Most examples alleged of hard emergence are soft when examined more closely. Consciousness and mental behaviours on the other hand are hard, as there is no way of deriving them from neurological or sub-neurological particulars. Traffic jams and piles of bricks are soft emergents. The quality of being alive and the quality of being conscious are hard emergents (if one insists that they emerge, which I certainly do not).

 

[Robbedigital]

Just in case this idea has never been coined before, here it goes.
"The Reverse Camel Through Eye of Needle"

Any person whose consciousness or higher self travels to a place outside of human comprehension, upon returning to human comprehension must thereby shed any/all experiences and understandings not comprehensible to humans.

This would likely include comprehensions of ideas such as: infinity, omnipresence, omnipotence, being-outside-of-time, unconditional positive regard.
I'm stipulating that any human notions of these ideas are constrained by anthropomorphism.

Ref Matthew 19:24 "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.”

 

[Alex]

He lost me at like 7 seconds, already trying to frame reality in the tiniest box possible. Something like (paraphrasing) "So, you have the brain, and inside the brain you have the mind, and the brain produces the mi...."
Nope, sorry. We don't know that. Just because you've settled YOUR simplest explanation, doesn't mean you have THE simplest explanation.

So, back to your response,
"..we can safely "encapsulate" the concept of conscious by defining it as our experience of being in the world."
No, you don't get to slap the label "consciousness" on everything that involves interaction between two entities. We have words. If you want to settle a word to describe "our experience of being in the world", then pick one or make one up. Lets let "Consciousness" be one (1) thing, and let's work toward settling it.

Also, Cause & Effect is not consciousness.. It's a principle.

Hey Robbie... would you be interested in helping me book some guests for this topic? I feel like I'm covered in a million times, but when I hear these next-generation (like this YT guy) repeat the same silliness I feel like maybe there's still some work to be done. let me know if you're interested in helping me out via a private conversation or email.

 

[Robbedigital]

It is what I think, and ... (lol) ... I get it just fine.

Essentially there are only three possible solutions.

Soft Emergence. Hard Emergence. And Monism. Various positions try to call themselves something more fanciful, but they reduce to one of these when scratched. Hard emergence goes nowhere. Soft emergence reduces to Monism.

In my own version of neutral monism, the ground of being is an immediate precursor to consciousness but not consciousness itself. This would be one and the same as the putative "at large" consciousness I mentioned above, and which I suggest is activated (or really "disclosed" as it was never "deactivated", only entrained to space-time behaviours) by Near Death Experience.

If you were to speculate on your conception of consciousness-outside-of-Time, Would you agree things might not be "active" as we understand active? And perhaps to describe it, you would have to do something akin to eliminating the "ness" from conscious-ness? or the "ing" from do-ing?
If I speculate about my theoretical higher-self interacting with my Time-bound self, I have to pontificate that while my time-bound self may well be constantly reacting to the presence or attributes of the higher-self, my higher-self might exist outside of time, therefore making it improper to say it's "doing" anything, as opposed to saying it just "is".
So then, if this were the case, mustn't the we use different words to describe the "consciousness" of the two selves? wouldn't they be totally different things?

I ask this in order to push toward simplification of terms. I'm of the thinking that the word "Consciousness" gets sloppily used to describe many different things for which we should ultimately be aiming to define many fully-separate terms. I don't buy the "it's all consciousness" default... at least not until we shave off the all the extra bells an whistles people have attached to the term. My above comparison of the time-bound self and higher-self is an attempt to prove one of many obvious examples where the label consciousness is used to describe many fully different things.

 

[Kai]

If you were to speculate on your conception of consciousness-outside-of-Time, Would you agree things might not be "active" as we understand active? And perhaps to describe it, you would have to do something akin to eliminating the "ness" from conscious-ness? or the "ing" from do-ing?
If I speculate about my theoretical higher-self interacting with my Time-bound self, I have to pontificate that while my time-bound self may well be constantly reacting to the presence or attributes of the higher-self, my higher-self might exist outside of time, therefore making it improper to say it's "doing" anything, as opposed to saying it just "is".
So then, if this were the case, mustn't the we use different words to describe the "consciousness" of the two selves? wouldn't they be totally different things?

I ask this in order to push toward simplification of terms. I'm of the thinking that the word "Consciousness" gets sloppily used to describe many different things for which we should ultimately be aiming to define many fully-separate terms. I don't buy the "it's all consciousness" default... at least not until we shave off the all the extra bells an whistles people have attached to the term. My above comparison of the time-bound self and higher-self is an attempt to prove one of many obvious examples where the label consciousness is used to describe many fully different things.

I think there’s some value in what you are saying (I’ve never been much persuaded by the “dudes doing things” version of exsomatic awareness). I do think we need to be careful though with words like “active” as it is unlikely that the noumenal state is constrained by the temporal state in any especially important way. So when we call it timeless, for instance, this doesn’t mean that time is arrested, or time is absent, or time-like things can’t happen should they choose to do so, as these in themselves are notions rooted in temporality. It’s more along the lines of “time simply doesn’t apply.” In other words, its not that the water of the ocean couldn’t flow downhill or flow in a current…it’s more than capable of doing those things should the opportunity or context arise, but in its natural repose probably does not.

I also have a problem with consciousness as the be-all description of everything, and in this I have a (relatively minor) disagreement with Bernardo. IMO, the ground of being is more accurately described as “pre-conscious” and out of this pre- or proto- consciousness, consciousness proper arises, but this requires metaphysical figure and ground, and hence contextuality. “Activity” as such is therefore built into what existence is. This “figure and grounding” (which begets the world) is then really the first and most important “action” of existence and it is never “not happening.” On the other hand, the thing about consciousness is that it can't be other than itself. There is no "description" of experientiality possible that does not embed experientiality...precisely the point that materialists persistently fail to grasp (or at least pretend not to grasp). So as soon as the existence principle figures-and-grounds itself we have consciousness (imo).

Beyond a certain point, I think it a fool’s game to try to second guess the nature of noumenal states as they may be something so different from what we experience in time-bound consciousness that just the attempt itself is a high folly. Still, the fact that we seem to discern evidence for noumena I think is highly significant. If memory and events are noumena (and I think they are) then this means that you yourself have a “noumenal image” that is non-time-bound, and on this basis, imo, would be your “survival” after death. A lot of folks who comment on this topic are unaware of the spectral temporality they sneak across into their concept of the afterlife when they attempt to discuss it, and in fact even those terms “afterlife” and “life after death” and “hereafter” do little more than disclose our termite-ness as time bound creatures, and like termites we are unable to faithfully conceive ourselves as outside of our termite-ness.

The idea that things come into existence and pass away, and thus have “births” and “deaths” is a time-bound “termite-ness” on the nature of being. We wiggle our wee antennae in the scented breeze and reckon we’re talking sense.

 

[Robbedigital]

So when we call it timeless, for instance, this doesn’t mean that time is arrested, or time is absent, or time-like things can’t happen should they choose to do so, as these in themselves are notions rooted in temporality. It’s more along the lines of “time simply doesn’t apply.” In other words, its not that the water of the ocean couldn’t flow downhill or flow in a current…it’s more than capable of doing those things should the opportunity or context arise, but in its natural repose probably does not.

I think you're making a huge assumption there. Your notion might not apply in (for example) a non-time model wherein every all infinite existence is a finished product already painted on the canvas with entities accessing it like a record. I don't think we have the mental metrics to think through how that would work, but i hope you see my point that it's one possible case wherein you wouldn't really say anything acts or happens. Again my point here is just to speculate on whether you would have to use a different word than consciousness to describe experience or being-hood in such a realm.

I also have a problem with consciousness as the be-all description of everything, and in this I have a (relatively minor) disagreement with Bernardo. IMO, the ground of being is more accurately described as “pre-conscious” and out of this pre- or proto- consciousness, consciousness proper arises, but this requires metaphysical figure and ground, and hence contextuality. “Activity” as such is therefore built into what existence is. This “figure and grounding” (which begets the world) is then really the first and most important “action” of existence and it is never “not happening.” On the other hand, the thing about consciousness is that it can't be other than itself. There is no "description" of experientiality possible that does not embed experientiality...precisely the point that materialists persistently fail to grasp (or at least pretend not to grasp). So as soon as the existence principle figures-and-grounds itself we have consciousness (imo).

My personal assumption is that what Bernardo calls consciousness is just the interconnectedness of everything in the physical realm. I think our higher-self/awareness-connection(whatever you wanna call it) is something completely different and non-physical, therefore i guess my opinion would be that Bernardo's Consciousness probably doesn't go with us to the afterlife.
This is just to say that I'm much more invested in learning about higher consciousness than physical consciousness. (to me its like, "ya, duh, of course everything in the physical realm is somehow connected regardless of location." and I'm happy that scientists try to parse out the HOW, but at the same time I get pissed when they try to extrapolate about physical findings to assume about a non-physical realm.

Beyond a certain point, I think it a fool’s game to try to second guess the nature of noumenal states as they may be something so different from what we experience in time-bound consciousness that just the attempt itself is a high folly. Still, the fact that we seem to discern evidence for noumena I think is highly significant. If memory and events are noumena (and I think they are) then this means that you yourself have a “noumenal image” that is non-time-bound, and on this basis, imo, would be your “survival” after death. A lot of folks who comment on this topic are unaware of the spectral temporality they sneak across into their concept of the afterlife when they attempt to discuss it, and in fact even those terms “afterlife” and “life after death” and “hereafter” do little more than disclose our termite-ness as time bound creatures, and like termites we are unable to faithfully conceive ourselves as outside of our termite-ness.

The idea that things come into existence and pass away, and thus have “births” and “deaths” is a time-bound “termite-ness” on the nature of being. We wiggle our wee antennae in the scented breeze and reckon we’re talking sense.

I think the sooner Scientific thinkers learn to settle with labeling things "whatever-it-is-A, whatever-it-is-B, etc" instead of calling everything consciousness, the sooner we'll have a long list of realms/forms of existence which can be used for a process of elimination to eventually leave us with explanations for each/every one except for "Whatever-it-is-M24" which doesn't physically exist but somehow causes responses with consciousness. Isn't that the goal? Well it is IMO, and I don't see how we get there when everything's consciousness.

 

[Kai]

I think you're making a huge assumption there. Your notion might not apply in (for example) a non-time model wherein every all infinite existence is a finished product already painted on the canvas with entities accessing it like a record. I don't think we have the mental metrics to think through how that would work, but i hope you see my point that it's one possible case wherein you wouldn't really say anything acts or happens. Again my point here is just to speculate on whether you would have to use a different word than consciousness to describe experience or being-hood in such a realm.


My personal assumption is that what Bernardo calls consciousness is just the interconnectedness of everything in the physical realm. I think our higher-self/awareness-connection(whatever you wanna call it) is something completely different and non-physical, therefore i guess my opinion would be that Bernardo's Consciousness probably doesn't go with us to the afterlife.
This is just to say that I'm much more invested in learning about higher consciousness than physical consciousness. (to me its like, "ya, duh, of course everything in the physical realm is somehow connected regardless of location." and I'm happy that scientists try to parse out the HOW, but at the same time I get pissed when they try to extrapolate about physical findings to assume about a non-physical realm.


I think the sooner Scientific thinkers learn to settle with labeling things "whatever-it-is-A, whatever-it-is-B, etc" instead of calling everything consciousness, the sooner we'll have a long list of realms/forms of existence which can be used for a process of elimination to eventually leave us with explanations for each/every one except for "Whatever-it-is-M24" which doesn't physically exist but somehow causes responses with consciousness. Isn't that the goal? Well it is IMO, and I don't see how we get there when everything's consciousness.

This is one of the issues of life outside time or the body. What would agency (tied to the concept of having any kind of "experience") mean if one were unable to act? "Accessing a record" would be an act that implies succession and a form of causation. I don't see how it could be exempt.

With respect to consciousness, again I would say that nothing can "explain" consciousness, whether it be called interconnectedness or whatever. As I noted above, there are no sufficient descriptions of experience that do not recursively reference the fact of experience.

 

[Robbedigital]

This is one of the issues of life outside time or the body. What would agency (tied to the concept of having any kind of "experience") mean if one were unable to act? "Accessing a record" would be an act that implies succession and a form of causation. I don't see how it could be exempt.

I knew my analogy was already failed there, but if I wanted to redeem it I would say maybe "interconnection" with the record, and I'd maybe even go out on a limb to suggest that the entirety of the record could "grow" in complexity somehow with out "time" transpiring.. Again, no idea how it would make sense, but I have to assume that it shouldn't make sense.

With respect to consciousness, again I would say that nothing can "explain" consciousness, whether it be called interconnectedness or whatever. As I noted above, there are no sufficient descriptions of experience that do not recursively reference the fact of experience.

Ah Hah.. I think you've helped me clarify my position at least for my benefit, and hopefully it makes sense to you too as a bonus. Either way, thanks for entertaining my pushback on this.
I'm of the thinking that our approach with consciousness should be as follows:
-Take (paraphrasing obviously) Bernardo's idea of the baseline form consciousness which is whatever the smallest part of existence that couldn't be measured (because if it were measurable it wouldn't be IT), and we categorize that as "Whatever-it-is-M24" OR we go ahead and label it "THE Consciousness".
-Then we take all the other items/states/essences/etc which we believe are consciousness-ie, and give them distinctly separate labels, and stop calling them consciousness.
-Then little by little we're able to chip away the aspects of items/states/essences/etc which we incorrectly assumed physical but turn up as non-physical or vice versa..
My thinking is that this is the only way you begin to categorize these things instead of romanticizing or dogmatizing them which is what I believe we currently do. I 100% agree that nothing can explain consciousness. What I believe to be the difference of my position is I'm like "Ok, then whatever we can confirm as won't-be-explained, let's set it the hell aside and take a fine-tooth comb to everything on-or-close-to it so we can separate everything into two baskets: 1. Physical and workable, and 2. Potentially Non-physical and non-workable.

Skeptiko User Chester Hunter once said on here that he sees the brain as a transceiver, and that flipped my lid. Ever sense then it's made continuously increasing sense to me. So much, that my current assumption/speculation about our existence is that actual baseline consciousness is both non-physical AND non-local but transmits and is received by us and everything in our realm. AND, therewith I also assume/speculate that everything that many assume to be physical consciousness is only interconnectedness.

 

[Kai]

I knew my analogy was already failed there, but if I wanted to redeem it I would say maybe "interconnection" with the record, and I'd maybe even go out on a limb to suggest that the entirety of the record could "grow" in complexity somehow with out "time" transpiring.. Again, no idea how it would make sense, but I have to assume that it shouldn't make sense.

Yeah, to be honest (and this is honest) I think the real challenge, including a challenge posed by but not really answered by - NDEs - would be what on earth a "life" (or being-ness) is, without action or time. Maybe a kind of "growth" is possible without time, maybe also a kind of "movement", but these are highly speculative ideas. In reality, I think it is very difficult to get the mind around what on earth it could mean, which is why I cautioned about speculating overly about the noumenal state (albeit that speculating is fun, however!). I guess my main concern is whether we can actually "do" anything in such a context, and thereby bring about any kind of change, even the kind of change that would be necessary to shift attention from one domain of experience to another, or to in any sense enact "love" or "fondness" or "fascination". Without the ability to do that, or *something like it* at least, it is awfully hard to contemplate a "life". And NDEs don't really give any clue about the life they purport to be midwifing. The entire experience is a threshold/vestibule presentation, in which some semblance of mortal time is still active.

 

[David Bailey]

Yeah, to be honest (and this is honest) I think the real challenge, including a challenge posed by but not really answered by - NDEs - would be what on earth a "life" (or being-ness) is, without action or time. Maybe a kind of "growth" is possible without time, maybe also a kind of "movement", but these are highly speculative ideas. In reality, I think it is very difficult to get the mind around what on earth it could mean, which is why I cautioned about speculating overly about the noumenal state (albeit that speculating is fun, however!). I guess my main concern is whether we can actually "do" anything in such a context, and thereby bring about any kind of change, even the kind of change that would be necessary to shift attention from one domain of experience to another, or to in any sense enact "love" or "fondness" or "fascination". Without the ability to do that, or *something like it* at least, it is awfully hard to contemplate a "life". And NDEs don't really give any clue about the life they purport to be midwifing. The entire experience is a threshold/vestibule presentation, in which some semblance of mortal time is still active.

Timelessness has puzzled me for a long time - yet it is mentioned in so many mystical experiences (NDE's and other types).

This may be something of a cop-out, but I suspect it may mean that there is more than one time-axis in play (time1 and time2 say). Imagine certain entities - say all discarnates - live in a time dimension distinct from ours - time2, so that they can see our past and future (time1) as one, but they can plan and do things in time2. That means they can see how things pan out way into our future, and maybe make a change. So now the contents of time1 have changed.

Probably the best way to see this is in terms of a 2-D time plane. Our time takes place in a horizontal direction only! Of course, there could be more than two dimensions......

David

 

[Kai]

Timelessness has puzzled me for a long time - yet it is mentioned in so many mystical experiences (NDE's and other types).

This may be something of a cop-out, but I suspect it may mean that there is more than one time-axis in play (time1 and time2 say). Imagine certain entities - say all discarnates - live in a time dimension distinct from ours - time2, so that they can see our past and future (time1) as one, but they can plan and do things in time2. That means they can see how things pan out way into our future, and maybe make a change. So now the contents of time1 have changed.

Probably the best way to see this is in terms of a 2-D time plane. Our time takes place in a horizontal direction only! Of course, there could be more than two dimensions......

David

Hello David.
I get the sense that the noumenal state is a timeless "gnosis of all things." Even in NDEs, people have a tendency to say that "everything was really happening at once." But there seems to be a kind of paradox involved, in that the temporal continuum is the one in which all (or at least many) of the things that are noumena in eternity are brought into being. In our realm, it seems as if these things are somehow still to be accomplished, whereas there they already exist, and have always existed. It's a bizarre thing to get the head around. And yet it makes some sense of what the mystics have always told us...namely, there is really nothing to "do", nothing that is incomplete, because all things are already accomplished. I'm not sure what state that is as a living reality, or what kind of "dynamism" it may contain, but I am fond of the idea that it presents itself as eternal freshness: even though everything may manifest as one eternal moment, that moment never loses its immediacy and blazing vitality, precisely because there is no time to erode it of its power.