Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Tom Butler]

But to consider the Moon (for example) in isolation, as an independent and unconnected thing, is incorrect, IMO, and therefore likely to lead to dubious or wrong conclusions. For that reason I oppose such reductionist attitudes; they are unhelpful and inconvenient, so they have no value.

Yet most people posting on this board speaks as if the brain is the center of reality.

I agree that Holism is ultimately the perspective to adopt. But I have found that people best understand distinctions.

As there appears to be no intent to communicate about these concepts, I see little reason to continue here.

[eyesofastranger]

There is little reason to contemplate what is beyond the observable universe. yet we do. To that end some very smart people took linear measurements along paths of standard candle star events and within our perception no curvature can be detected. Know that this simple explanation of thier experiment and doesn't begin to convey the complexity of thier measurements. What we know is from what we can observe the universe is flat. You can't shoot a photosonic beam and hit yourself in the back. It could still be curved IF it is 300 trillion years across.
So the question is there some way to measure beyond our limited view of existance. I see this as a worthy thought experiment.

[Carter Blunt]

Do I "believe", no. I can only judge whats more plausible or less plausible. Most plausible, there isn't an afterlife.

But, there's a really interesting theory I've been following... it's called "reincarnation soul trap" theory. It goes something like this. There's a highly advanced race of malevolent alien beings that tricked our souls into a simulation matrix, where we are constantly memory wiped after we die, then reincarnated. We are essentially batteries for the aliens, and they feed off our negativity. If you go into the light at the end of the tunnel when you die, that's bad, because your soul will get hit with millions of volts, and you'll be stuck back in this prison. Instead, you need to focus on the matrix and head for the exit, which is somewhere in relation to the moon. This theory mostly comes from people who do psychedelics and meditation and other wacky new age stuff, plus apparently a person who wrote a book claiming to have interviewed an alien, although I never looked into that part. Thing is, it sounds like a modern conspiracy theory found only on the likes of Youtube. But it isn't. Check out the Buddhist wheel of life. It's held by a demon, and Buddha is always pointing to the moon, and the goal of enlightenment is essentially to escape the reincarnation cycle.

[eyesofastranger]

Well Carter Blunt hit the philisophical question didn't he.
They made a movie like that once. I may tend to babble on this response and I appologize. Are you happy being a blue pill? Or are you a red pill?
I'm going to take the door back to the matrix and live as a blue pill. Does it matter. It never mattered before I contemplated the possibility that I live in a simulation. If this is a simulation then an afterlife is possible as it would have a plausible mechanism.
So the media types like Elon musk says there is a 1 in a billion we're the original. Sure I get that. If Moore's law holds true then our ability to create simulations will grow exponentially and the odds of us being the original is slim. Neil deGrasse Tyson says it's 50/50. Ok he understands that if it's a simulation we have some measurements we can make and maybe yes maybe no. AJ's why files youtube channel says the evidence of a simulation is all around us. Holographic univese/ zipf's law/ universal constant. But then from my home planet of Canada is Anton Petrov who says the evidence points to no.
Is there an afterlife and is this a simulation are both philosophy questions and why we're here.
If the universe allows for an afterlife then the only mechanism that comes to mind is quantum entanglement. Roger Penrose and largely forgotten Stuart Hammeroff identified the possible existence of dendrites pimpled on to the connections between neaurons in the brain. If we are consciouse and part of the quantum world at the same time then that is a possible mechanism. I suspect it would be much like herding cats. This was all from memory and not spell or fact checked but I'm close to what I meant.

[Pattern-chaser]

AJ's why files youtube channel says the evidence of a simulation is all around us.

It is usually assumed that the simulation possibility is indistinguishable from the reality-is-what-our-senses-show-us view. This isn't philosophically necessary, of course, but I do wonder if these claims of "evidence" are real? I wonder if they can be justified? It would certainly be interesting if they were. What do you think? Do you believe these claims?

[eyesofastranger]

Well Pattern-chaser, what I believe is I'm ok with the simulation. If I try to answer all I achieve is babbel.
It seems what we're looking for is pixels. if we can find a pixellation in the real world then aha! Or what if reality only exists on the particular board your playing? The quantum world does that but a tree can still fall in the woods. I believe that it's all a worthy thought experiment but maybe irrelevent. Plato wrote of such things without any knowledge of modern simulations but on the possibility the mind creates reality. Currently I don't know what I would accept as proof.Planck length may be our pixel as all the rules break at that scale. I have another belief I have stuck with since my youth. Anyone who claims to understand quantum is lying.

[Stoppelmann]

In his book, Bernardo Kastrup uses a hypothesis for addressing the mind-body problem to begin with, merely to show that a contradiction to the standard materialist view is thinkable. His own non-dualistic hypothesis is more complicated and makes extensive use of metaphor, and while it contradicts the hypothesis as being a dualistic hypothesis, it doesn’t criticise its contradiction of the materialist position.

The predictions of the filter hypothesis
An alternative hypothesis for addressing the mind-body problem is only useful insofar as it makes predictions that differ from the predictions of the mainstream materialist worldview. Below, I will elaborate on the two most important points where the filter hypothesis discussed above departs from materialism in its predictions.

First, the filter hypothesis implies that consciousness, in its unfiltered state, is unbound. As such, consciousness must be fundamentally unitary and non-individualized, for separateness and individualization entail boundaries. The emergence of multiple, separate and different conscious perspectives, or egos, is a consequence of the filtering and localization process: different egos, entailing different perspectives on space-time, retain awareness of different subsets of all potential subjective experiences, the rest being filtered out. It is the differences across subsets that give each ego its idiosyncratic vantage point, personal history, and sense of personal identity.

The subjective experiences that are filtered out become the so-called ‘unconscious’ mind of the respective ego. Since each ego allows in only an infinitesimally small part of all potential experiences – given the unfathomable variety of conscious perspectives that exist in potentiality – the ‘unconscious’ minds of different egos will differ only minimally, the vast majority of the ‘unconscious’ being identical across egos. As such, the filter hypothesis, unlike materialism, predicts the existence of a ‘collective unconscious;’ a shared repository of potential experiences that far transcends mere genetic predispositions of a species. It is conceivable that, either through natural fluctuations or intentional interference with the filtering mechanisms that modulate our individual experiences, parts of this ‘collective unconscious’ can occasionally penetrate awareness.

Secondly, and most importantly, the filter hypothesis predicts that one can have experiences that do not correlate with one’s brain states. Since here the brain is seen merely as a mechanism for filtering out experiences, it is conceivable that, when this mechanism is interfered with so as to be partially or temporarily deactivated, one’s subjective experience could delocalize, expand beyond the body in time and space, and perhaps even beyond time and space as such. In other words, the filter hypothesis predicts that transpersonal, non-local experiences can conceivably happen when particular brain processes are partially or temporarily deactivated. This possibility, of course, is excluded by the materialist worldview. The key element of this second prediction of the filter hypothesis is that non-local, transpersonal experiences are predicted to correlate precisely with certain reductions of excitatory brain activity. This is counterintuitive from a materialist perspective, since the latter entails that experience is brain activity.
Kastrup, Bernardo. Why Materialism Is Baloney: How True Skeptics Know There Is No Death and Fathom Answers to life, the Universe, and Everything (pp. 41-42). John Hunt Publishing. Kindle

I find that this hypothesis shows that it is possible to understand consciousness as not dependant upon the physical entity brain, which means that the assumption that a lack of brain activity means no consciousness and therefore no experience is not necessarily true, and so a NDE could hypothetically occur (and reportedly has occurred), even if brain scanners register no brain activity. The non-dual hypothesis only emphasizes this point, demonstrating that the brain itself is a result of consciousness and therefore not separate – but for that you must read the book.

The point was also made in a video interviewing him and Rupert Spira, who, though coming from different starting points, find a strong correlation between their views, if not being the same view differently explained. I would encourage people with a strong interest in this subject to watch that video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQuMzocvmTQ

[Pattern-chaser]

Well Pattern-chaser, what I believe is I'm ok with the simulation. If I try to answer all I achieve is babbel.
It seems what we're looking for is pixels. if we can find a pixellation in the real world then aha! Or what if reality only exists on the particular board your playing? The quantum world does that but a tree can still fall in the woods. I believe that it's all a worthy thought experiment but maybe irrelevent. Plato wrote of such things without any knowledge of modern simulations but on the possibility the mind creates reality. Currently I don't know what I would accept as proof.Planck length may be our pixel as all the rules break at that scale. I have another belief I have stuck with since my youth. Anyone who claims to understand quantum is lying.

Instead of looking for pixellation, why not consider that fairly recent scientific discovery, 'quantisation'? That resembles what you're looking for, more than pixellation. [Pixellation that (presumably) the creators of the simulation have overcome?].

[Sculptor1]

There are many religions and occult traditions that postulate an afterlife - Defined here as the continuation of 'consciousness'
and self awareness after the biological self is deceased.

There is 'anecdotal evidence' to support this view, but as far as I know no empirical evidence has ever proven without a reasonable
doubt that conscious life exists after biological death.

I do not even think that there is any anecdotal evidence worthy of the word "evidence".
What anecdotes do you have in mind?

[Pattern-chaser]

I do not even think that there is any anecdotal evidence worthy of the word "evidence".

Anecdotal evidence is surely evidence, but of the least, er, demanding (?) form. If I say that I believe X, that is evidence for the existence of X. But no-one would even try to pretend that this is anything but the very weakest form of evidence. And yet, I think it reasonable to describe it as "evidence" — properly qualified, of course. Then there is no risk of misleading anyone, or over-stating one's case.

[Sculptor1]

I do not even think that there is any anecdotal evidence worthy of the word "evidence".

Anecdotal evidence is surely evidence, but of the least, er, demanding (?) form. If I say that I believe X, that is evidence for the existence of X. But no-one would even try to pretend that this is anything but the very weakest form of evidence. And yet, I think it reasonable to describe it as "evidence" — properly qualified, of course. Then there is no risk of misleading anyone, or over-stating one's case.

"Anecdotal evidence" is evidence, is a tautology.
The point is to ask could any anecdote concerning this question be classes as any kind of evidence.
Unless someone actually returns from the grave with the ability to give evidence then I do not regard any anecdotes are valid as evidence.
My main reason for the post was to ask my interlocutor what were the anecdotes.

[Tom Butler]

In his book, Bernardo Kastrup uses a hypothesis for addressing the mind-body problem to begin with, merely to show that a contradiction to the standard materialist view is thinkable. His own non-dualistic hypothesis is more complicated and makes extensive use of metaphor, and while it contradicts the hypothesis as being a dualistic hypothesis, it doesn’t criticise its contradiction of the materialist position.

Bernardo Kastrup w\wrote a "runner up" essay for the Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies 2022 essay contest which asked "What is the best available evidence for the survival of human consciousness after permanent bodily death?" It is at You can’t post image, email or url link ... ase remove

As an ordained Spiritualist, ITC practitioner and engineer, I have often found myself explaining current thought about our spiritual nature, the nature of reality and our relationship with nature to laypeople who identify with their body (body-centric perspective). People typically lock onto the idea of nonduality as a religious concept while dualism is more4 often seen as a metaphysical one.

One of the points I need to make with my audience is that the "space" in which we think the influence of thought is propagated in very different from physical space. If survival of consciousness after bodily death is a fact, there must be something that continues and something that does not. Such concepts require a vocabulary that is explicit. With this in mind, I have come to define a person as "an immortal self entangled with a human in an avatar relationship." To support this, I have composed what I refer to as a "Two-Mind Solution to the Survival Hypothesis." You can’t post image, email or url link ... ase remove

While I understand and agree with the major points of that video you referenced, I feel that much of the choice of terminology defeats communication. "Nonduality" in the sense there is one reality is fine for religious teaching but ignores the dualistic nature of life in the physical. In the same sense, relating such states of mind as happiness with gaining understanding is confusing without more extensive listener education about the difference between human instincts and the urge to gain discerning intellect.

Comprehending the dualism concept does more to separates the seeker from the complacent than any other.


{I seem to have upset the moderator and am no longer allowed to post links. I give up}

[Samana Johann]

It's better to assume that one doesn't come from nothing. Existences, the many various, have causes.
It's very simple, but the problem is not remember. Nobody here, for example, didn't had a history before taking birth here in this forum. Hardly one, if decaying here, will not seek for another becoming. Craving and ignorance leads beings to wander on, from taking birth to old age, sickness and death.

[Stoppelmann]

Bernardo Kastrup w\wrote a "runner up" essay for the Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies 2022 essay contest which asked "What is the best available evidence for the survival of human consciousness after permanent bodily death?"

As an ordained Spiritualist, ITC practitioner and engineer, I have often found myself explaining current thought about our spiritual nature, the nature of reality and our relationship with nature to laypeople who identify with their body (body-centric perspective). People typically lock onto the idea of nonduality as a religious concept while dualism is more4 often seen as a metaphysical one.

I found the paper you mentioned and found it spoke of many things which were mentioned in the video, but better expressed due to having been written. Thank you for that. It obviously expands the thought behind the short quote that I posted, which the 63 pages would be expected to do.

Your background is also interesting, although I have no experience with the Spiritualist community, and a short look in the encyclopaedia is obviously not exhaustive. Yes, people are prone to the standard dual perspective of materialism or physicalism, which is what is widely promoted, as Bernardo says in the paper, despite being called into question by numerous scientific explorations. In my view, it is also why contemporary Christianity fails, because they adhere largely to a materialist world view and see matter as primary rather than consciousness.

One of the points I need to make with my audience is that the "space" in which we think the influence of thought is propagated in very different from physical space. If survival of consciousness after bodily death is a fact, there must be something that continues and something that does not. Such concepts require a vocabulary that is explicit. With this in mind, I have come to define a person as "an immortal self entangled with a human in an avatar relationship." To support this, I have composed what I refer to as a "Two-Mind Solution to the Survival Hypothesis."

This is a view that I adopted after some consideration of non-dual perspectives, but as Bernardo points out, if everything is consciousness, the avatar would also be of that, and there is no two minds, but one, which has both cosmic unlimitedness and local limitedness, which only suggest duality. The example of that is the whirlpool in a river, which is a localised phenomenon but is still the river.

While I understand and agree with the major points of that video you referenced, I feel that much of the choice of terminology defeats communication. "Nonduality" in the sense there is one reality is fine for religious teaching but ignores the dualistic nature of life in the physical. In the same sense, relating such states of mind as happiness with gaining understanding is confusing without more extensive listener education about the difference between human instincts and the urge to gain discerning intellect.

As I indicated above, according to non-duality, the dualistic nature of life in the physical is an illusion caused by a localised limitation, which is caused by physical experience overriding the non-dual peace at the centre of our being. With practise, we can approach this centre and gain peace, and as Rupert says, increasingly overcome the emotions that can cause imbalance in a physical life. He is careful not to say that he fully overcomes them. I find the spiritual aspect (bearing in mind Rupert dislikes being called a spiritual teacher) is the area in which such practises can be learned, and a correlation to daily life achieved.

Comprehending the dualism concept does more to separates the seeker from the complacent than any other.

I would say that understanding the experience of dualism to be a physical illusion, just like other illusions which can fool us, is an enlightening experience that can wake up the complacent and make them into a seeker.

[Tom Butler]

I found the paper you mentioned and found it spoke of many things which were mentioned in the video, but better expressed due to having been written. Thank you for that. It obviously expands the thought behind the short quote that I posted, which the 63 pages would be expected to do.

Thanks for looking the article up.

Until Pattern-chaser just flat out rejected dualism, I had not realized there was such an issue. Looking around, I see that the Eastern Spiritual teacher Deepak Chopra is an active proponent of nondualism. As a spiritual teacher and I think one who uses a lot of Hindu references, it seems clear that he is using nondualism in the sense of holism or "we are one." I can't argue with that but the devil is in the details.

From the perspective of the singularity we call the Big Bang, the physical universe is nondualistic. It is also nondualistic from the perspective of a person who is convinced mind is an emergent quality of the brain. However, if a person accepts the possibility of a mind that is independent of brain, it is necessary to decide the kind of space mind inhabits. We know thought (Psi) is propagated in a kind of space that, as we understand it today, has nonphysical qualities. The implications of that are important to the effectiveness of conscious seeking of greater lucidity.

For my writing, I have decided to make the distinction that nondualism is a reference to the perspective of Source (Infinite Intelligence, God, spirit) and Dualism is a comparison between physical and nonphysical space. It is better to talk to people with terms that are relevant for where they live than where their imagined angels live.

When considering Spiritualism, it is necessary to distinguish between Organized Spiritualism as a religious-minded community that seeks to understand and work with the phenomena of continuing life and spiritualist-minded people who are the same but not affiliated with organized Spiritualism. Spiritualist -minded folk tend to be less anchored in one cultural mindset.

I would say that understanding the experience of dualism to be a physical illusion, just like other illusions which can fool us, is an enlightening experience that can wake up the complacent and make them into a seeker.

In some systems of thought, great respect is given to legendary teachers who have escaped the Wheel of reincarnation but then returns to help the rest of us. The idea is that the teacher takes the risk of sliding back into humanness (my word), and consequently lose his or her previously acquired progression. Robert Monroe had a similar story about two etheric tourists named AA and BB. (Monroe was an engineer and liked acronyms.)

AA decided to take an excursion into the physical as a human and quickly degenerated into a human instinct driven creature of earth ... thereby forgetting his prior understanding. As the story goes, BB stayed near and tried to guide AA back to understanding, but it took many lifetimes for AA to return.

The idea is that one does not begin the journey out of this venue for learning until he or she recognizes there is a difference between who we are as humans and who we are as spiritual life forms. This concept is also described in the Katha Upanishad as the Razor's Edge:

"1-III-12. This Self hidden in all beings does not shine. But by seers of subtle and pointed intellect capable of perceiving subtle objects, It is seen.

"1-III-13. Let the wise man merge speech in his mind, merge that (mind) into the intelligent self and the intelligent self into the Mahat. (Let him then) merge the Mahat into the peaceful Self.

"1-III-14. Arise, awake, and learn by approaching the exalted ones, for that path is sharp as a razor’s edge, impassable, and hard to go by, say the wise.

"1-III-15. By knowing that which is soundless, touchless, formless, un-decaying, so also tasteless, eternal, odourless, beginningless, endless, subtler than Mahat and constant, man is liberated from the jaws of death."