Dr. Eben Alexander, NDE Science Wins Out |504|

'If the OBE experiencer relates a conversation that happened in another room accurately while technically dead or some version of coma I fail to see what other explication there is other then it's a OBE.
In my exploration of that issue I found that death is defined differently in different jurisdictions, and brain death is very different from clinical death, and it is very rare for patients to get actual brain death tests via EEG to determine brain death, and even then, studies show, activity still takes place much deeper than a surface EEG shows.

Also, auditory senses are among the last to die so they take a long time to flatten on an EEG. I know this from personal observation. So it's entirely conceivable that where death has been assumed, the patients weren't actually "dead", and that the patients are in fact receiving auditory signals on a subconscious level that are later remembered in a way that make it seem to them as if they were experiencing it in real time, when in-fact they weren't.

These sorts of incidents are obviously more common than most people think. My late spouse's sister woke-up in a morgue inside a body bag after being pronounced dead by mistake.

Also, from my firsthand discussions with doctors, I was told that they have never heard of a case where a patient has been pronounced brain-dead after a full EEG scan, but suddenly come back to life. If you have a verifiable references, by all means, post them.
Perhaps the experiencer imagines something which actually turns out to be correct, but the probabilities that a person could guess correctly are fantastical. To believe such a thing as true one would have to believe in something so remote possible as possible, believing in the fantastical.
Looking at some of the ideas of materlistic science one comes across this believing in the fantastical. An example of that is how one trillion atoms got together forming the first cellular life, by bumping into one another. A belief in the improbable, the fantastic, a miracle of accident. Or a believe in miracles.
I don't know about all that. Several issues to unpack there. I don't see any reason a universe creator isn't a possibility. Nor do I see any reason that a universe creator wouldn't make a universe that itself is capable of creating. In fact, it seems to me that any entity capable of creating universes, would find self-evolving universes much more interesting than boring pre-programed universes. But who knows? I guess it depends on how interesting you want your universe creator to be.
In so far as there being two distinct realities, objective/subjective. This assumes that consciousness can actually be non-parcial . Not colored in any way by the individual. That beliefs are not part of the looking. Clearly we can not get out of ourselves to observe anything.
Not exactly. I would say it's actually the opposite. It's objective reality that is non-partial — simply what it is, outside the filters of Platos cave.
Your stating here consciousness independent of a body is a impossibility. Hence this is the set of conditions in which your going to be looking at the world/reality.
Not really. I don't start with the assumption that life after death as is typically imagined is an impossibility, so that is not the "set of conditions" I begin with. The set of conditions I begin with is what is known with a high degree of scientific confidence. Then I extrapolate from there what the possibilities are ( and are not ).
There is a set which allows for subjective mind to meld forming what we call consensus realities, but this is not strictly objective. But to get to that set we have to pass into immaterialality (consciousness=energy). But since you ruled that out as a possibility you are not able to examine these probabilities. Never the less that's where we're going.
I'm not sure we're looking at "consensus reality" in the same way. I see consensus reality as an agreement between multiple individuals as to what constitutes a given reality.
I have to hand it to you for taking part in a forum which is not about materlism. Giving a contrary conception.
Thanks. I find these discussions very interesting from a variety of perspectives. The thing to take away from my position is that I accept that there are phenomena that are genuine, but that some interpretations of them cannot be accurate, and therefore time could be better spent on other avenues of investigation.
 
Last edited:
What is our "self"?

Our "self" is not an object or a set of statuses, but is a moving momentum at the front tip of a running time line, existing in and only in "now".

In order to explain what is our "self", I will need to explain several prerequisite concepts.

The first concept is the warehouse of many many 3 dimensional universe statuses.

Imagine a phase frame of our 3 dimensional universe in a specific point of time, all the information of every status of every space and object belonging to this static phase frame of 3 dimensional universe form a static model.

There are different such a kind of static models in different point of time, and in each point of time, there are different static models of universe representing different possibilities of the statuses of the universe in this specific time, thus we see a matrix of all the static 3 dimensional universe models residing in a higher dimension warehouse.

If you can observe this warehouse from its outside, you will see all the possibilities of the statuses of our 3 dimensional universe in all the points of time, each of which is represented as a static model. You can expect the total quantity of the static universe models in this warehouse to be large as to exceeding the concept of "infinity" and can't be spoken in human language.
If you zoom in to a specific model which is a specific set of possible statuses of our 3 dimensional universe in a specific point of time, you will observe every person's statuses in that specific possibility in that specific point of time.

But, none of those static 3 dimensional models of our 3 dimensional universe contains any one of our "self".
The Creator creates each of our "self", AFTER creating this "warehouse of many static 3 dimensional universe models". Note, the word "AFTER" I used in my previous sentence is not to be understood by our sense of before, now, and after of time.

There are two important things to know, first thing to know, the Creator's creation of this warehouse to store every possibility of statuses of 3 dimensional universe in every point of time from the commence of time to the end of time, is a prerequisite of the existence of our "self", but it is only ONE of the prerequisites, there is at least another prerequisite without which each of our "self" doesn't exist, that being said, the second thing to know, our "self" doesn't come into existence right after the Creator has created this warehouse of every possibility of statuses of 3 dimensional universe in every point of time, the Creator needed to do the second step of its creation of our "self". Note, when I used the English language tense, like the past time "needed" or the completion tense "has created", I did not mean them in our human's sense of before, now and after of time.

The second step of the Creator's creation is very very important, to understand the second step is the key to understand our "self". I call the creation of the Creator's second step as "Red Running Hike", which has the same acronym as "Red Riding Hood", for commemorating this famous fairy tale. Semantically, the term "Red Running Hike" is perhaps better to be named as "Red Running Line" or "Red Running Ribbon", but I will use the acronym "RRH" later in this article.

After creating the warehouse to store all the possibilities of the statuses of 3 dimensional universe in all the points of time, from the commence of time to the end of time, the Creator created another thing called the RRH, the Creator first created one RRH, then sent it to run through the warehouse following a route upon which some rules were applied, this RRH is like a 3 dimensional universe models piercer, or you could imagine it as a warehouse penetrator, whatever, this RRH bumps one phase frame of a static 3 dimensional universe model once and only once in every single point of time, and keeps bumping and passing through numerous static 3 dimensional universe models along with "this RRH's time line's flowing".

Let us make clear about the concepts of "time" and "time's flowing", "time" is a static concept, it is a fourth dimension space for accommodating the residence of many phase frames of 3 dimensional universe models, whereas "time's flowing" is a moving concept, it is like a train running through this fourth dimension space, bumping on and passing through many phase frames of 3 dimensional universe models residing inside of this fourth dimension space.

Numerous phase frames of 3 dimensional universe models reside in the fourth dimension space what we could call "time", each static 3 dimensional universe model records all the statuses of a possibility of universe in a specific point of time, but none of them contains any of our "self". It is the RRH's running momentum's passing through this fourth dimension space and keeping bumping upon numerous static 3 dimensional universe models, which generates and accommodates the very existence of our "self". That is to say, when an RRH has been sent by the Creator to run through the warehouse, passing through numerous phase frames of 3 dimensional universe models and bumping on each phase frame of 3 dimensional universe model on its way, it is accommodating the very existence of our "self", each of our "self" resides and only resides inside of this RRH's front tip which represents the "now" of the time's flowing along which this RRH is running.

We can imagine the Creator created many many different RRHs and sent them to run through this warehouse, and all of us reside inside of a same RRH, more precisely, we reside in the front tip of the same RRH, and each of our "self" is a moving momentum, keeps moving along with this RRH's passing through the warehouse and bumping upon each static phase frame of 3 dimensional universe model created by the Creator prior to its creation of any RRH.

The concept of "now" is coarsely relevant to a specific RRH's moving path's front tip, you can imagine the RRH is actually a moving dot in the fourth dimension space, but it has strong connections with its trailing, which is like a ribbon not only indicating the history trace of this RRH but also bearing the coordinates of this RRH's current position - the "now" of this RRH.
What is our "self"?

For this question, the prerequisite concepts have been said foregoing, now it is time to explain this question, what is our "self". Our "self" is a part of one and only one specific RRH, each of us resides inside this RRH, and as this RRH - a moving dot piercing through the warehouse storing all the static phase frames of 3 dimensional models - keeps running, we reside and only reside at its trace's front tip what can be coarsely analogized as our "now".

Our sense of "now" is the very basis of the existence of our "self", it clearly senses our basic perception of our "now", immediate past moment, and imminent next moment, and this sense of "immediate past moment - now - imminent next moment" keeps moving, I repeat because this is very important, it keeps moving, along with our commonly shared RRH, which is like a dot spacecraft flying through a fourth dimension space, along a specific route, through the warehouse which stores all the possibilities of all the statuses of static phase frame of 3 dimensional universe model in all the points of time.

We only reside inside this RRH, being unable to jump off it, unable to backtrack its history path, or whimsically backtrack to one previous point on its trailing and pick up another direction or another way, and we even are being unable to stop moving with this RRH, we can't stop or pause moving along with this RRH's running, otherwise we cease to exist.

Further more, since the RRH is a dot - a never pause moving dot - representing the front tip of a running trailing like a running ribbon, we only reside inside this front tip, we can't reside in this running ribbon's two or more different points simultaneously, we only exist in "now", and the "now" is moving along with our commonly shared RRH.

Each of us is a part of this RRH, our commonly shared RRH contains the very "self" of each of us - the existence of our "self". To say one's self can jump off this RRH, is like to say one's self can jump off one's own self, and thus leaves one's self but still be one's self, this is the basic illogical contradiction which is a meaningless wrong thing to say. The same applies to the sayings like, "one's self can backtrack this RRH's path", "one's self can simultaneously exist in two or more different points of this RRH", "one's self can pause or stop moving with this RRH's moving".

We only exist in this RRH, reside in the front tip of its trailing, keep moving with this RRH's moving, being as moving momentum of this RRH's passing through the warehouse - a fourth dimension space storing all the 3 dimensional universe's phase frames, we only exist in "now", this is what is our "self".

I said previously, this RRH has strong connections with its past trace, you can imagine it always links with its trailing line, which is the reason why I feel it can be named Red Running Ribbon - for that its trailing is like a line or a ribbon. But importantly, an RRH is not any dot in its trailing, or its future which hasn't happened, an RRH is one and only one dot, and it is special in that it is not a stasis dot but rather it is a moving dot, for which you can imagine that all the dots in its trailing line can be colored grey, and all the dots in its possible further path can be portrayed as color black, but the RRH itself is a red dot which is keeping moving, or in other words, it is keeping continuously changing its position in its running ribbon - the ribbon of it past - now - and future. Any of the dots in an RRH's determined and linked history trailing line is not this RRH's self, but its residual shadowy record which refers to all the information of all the statuses of all the spaces and objects in a specific possibility of 3 dimensional universe in a specific point of time which was actually bumped upon and passed through by this RRH's historical moving.

This relationship of an RRH and its trailing dots applies to each of our "self" as well, "the past you" IS NOT "your self", as your self always exists and only exists in an RRH and thus always keeps moving along with this RRH, "a specific past of you in a specific point of time in your happened past", is only a residual shadowy record which is not "your self" but has strong connections with "your self", and "your self" is always in "now", at the front tip of an RRH's running path and keeps running along with this RRH.

I haven't finished writing my opinions but I do not have time now. T_T T_T T_T T_T
 
Last edited:
What is our "self"? ...
It appears that you are a very deep thinker, and although I might have said some things a little differently, much of what you say makes perfect sense to me. Where we might diverge in our thinking is on two points:
  1. The premise that there is a universe creator and that we are in one such universe is not a certainty.
  2. The premise that if there is a universe creator, that the universe's timeline ( along with our data ) is stored in some sort of memory, is also not a certainty.
It may be the case that there is no universe creator ( we don't know for sure ). Assuming that either there is or isn't, is a matter of faith rather than fact. But if we consider them as possibilities for the sake of exploration, if there is no universe creator, then the universe we're in is the only one there is. There is no "other universe" that can constitutes an afterlife realm, and logically a single universe cannot be capable of storing itself inside itself — it can only be itself, in which case we are always "us" regardless of the situation, until such time as we cease to exist in this universe as "us" — The end.

However, given the possibility that our universe could be a construct devised by some creator in another universe, we cannot rule out the possibility that such a creator may have set it up in such a way that everything that happens is stored in some kind of vast memory. That is the only possibility for a loophole that could facilitate what we might assume to be some sort of afterlife. The problem with that, is that if that is the case, then everything about you in that afterlife is only a copy. It's not the original "you".

Also, to speak more directly to the model you describe in your post, what we seem to be imagining is a situation that in my own reflections along similar lines, I describe as a quantized timeline. In other words, as you suggest, objective reality exists in a series of frames that we perceive in the now.

This could very well be the case, but again we don't know for sure. However if it is the case, then each frame ( or quanta of time ) is distinct from the one before, in which case as time unfolds into the future, we are always copies ( or replicas ), in which case, if we are always copies, then whether or not we end-up being copies in some afterlife continuum, is of no conceptual difference with respect to the notion of our "selves" than being a copy in the next frame of this continuum.

So in the end, the only possibilities that allow for there to be anything we call an afterlife, end-up with us being copies of our former selves, not the originals, as those are always extant in some former "frame". So the idea that afterlives constitute some "continuity" of consciousness ( or anything else for that matter ), is either purely illusory, or it just doesn't happen. Those are the only two possible options that I can see.

To sum-up. There is only one "you" and anything else can only be a copy. That copy might even think it's the original "you", but there's no way it can be. Either way, only you are "you", and as you suggest, it only exists in the here and "now".
 
Last edited:
It appears that you are a very deep thinker, and although I might have said some things a little differently, much of what you say makes perfect sense to me. Where we might diverge in our thinking is on two points:
  1. The premise that there is a universe creator and that we are in one such universe is not a certainty.
  2. The premise that if there is a universe creator, that the universe's timeline ( along with our data ) is stored in some sort of memory, is also not a certainty.
It may be the case that there is no universe creator ( we don't know for sure ). Assuming that either there is or isn't, is a matter of faith rather than fact. But if we consider them as possibilities for the sake of exploration, if there is no universe creator, then the universe we're in is the only one there is, and logically it cannot be capable of storing itself inside itself — it can only be itself, in which case we are always "us" regardless of the situation, until such time as we cease to exist in this universe as "us".

However given the possibility that our universe could be a construct devised by some creator in another universe, we cannot rule out the possibility that such a creator may have set it up in such a way that it stores a record of everything that happens,. That is the only possibility for a loophole that could facilitate what we might assume to be some sort of afterlife. The problem with that, is that if that is the case, then everything in that afterlife is only a copy. It's not the original "you".

Also, to speak more directly to the model you describe in your post, what we seem to be imagining is a situation that in my own reflections along similar lines, I describe as a quantized timeline. In other words, as you suggest, objective reality exists in a series of frames that we perceive in the now.

This could very well be the case, but again we don't know for sure. However if it is the case, then each frame ( or quanta of time ) is distinct from the one before, in which case as time unfolds into the future, we are always copies ( or replicas ), in which case, if we are always copies, then whether or not we end-up being copies in some afterlife continuum, is of no conceptual difference with respect to the notion of our "selves" than being a copy in the next frame of this continuum.

So in the end, the only possibilities that allow for their to be anything we call an afterlife, end-up with us being copies of our former selves, not the originals, as those are always extant in some former "frame". So the idea that afterlives constitute some "continuity" of consciousness ( or anything else for that matter ), is either purely illusory, or it just doesn't happen. There is only one "you" and anything else can only be a copy. That copy might even think it's the original "you", but there's no way it can be. Only "you" are "you", and as you suggest, it only exists in the here and "now".
Note dear J Randall Murphy
what I'm going to say in this post doesn't serve as a complete reply to your opinions, it will only be a quick reply to say something I think important to clarify my meaning which I didn't express clearly in my previous post. I need to do some preparation for tomorrow's work soon before going to sleep.

Thank you for your reading my poorly written English paragraphs and thank you for replying to me. I didn't make some meanings clearly so caused your slightly misunderstanding to my opinion stance, sorry but it was to be expected because English language is not my mother tongue.

What you said about the divergence of some opinion stances between yours and mine, is actually not the divergence, but the consensus.

You interpreted my meaning as, I meant the Creator created many many different time lines to run through that warehouse which stores every possibility of universe model in every point of time, yes, you are right, I did mean so.

You interpreted my meaning as, I meant each of our selves exists simultaneously in those different time lines, no, I didn't mean so.

My actual opinions are exactly the same as yours: the different fates of us in different time lines have nothing to do with "us" - or should I say each of "our selves" - you call them the copy of us, I call them different "selves" which reside in a different RRH(Red Running Hike or Red Running Ribbon) and which are irrelevant to our senses of "our selves" but have the statistically similar statuses of those of ours.

The Creator firstly created the warehouse in a fourth dimension space, to store every possible static universe model in every point of time, then the Creator created numerous different RRHs or should I call it time lines to run through those universe models.

Our selves reside in a same time line - and we only exist in this time line's front tip - that is the "now" - and our existences are moving along with this time line's flowing.

There are different time lines, in which there are different "persons" who are statistically similar or even the same as our statuses in some or all of the same scale points of time, but I didn't mean or imply those "persons" in those "different time lines" are the same "self" as us in this time line - our commonly shared time line.

In this sense, we actually agree with each other and we are at the same stance - by your expression - those copies are not us.

But I do not call them copies, since I believe the origin - or the prototype archetype template doesn't exist in any of those time lines. I postulate the origin exists outside of all time lines - in a higher dimension, and obviously, the Creator doesn't exist in any of those universe models, the Creator exists in some dimension outside of those universe models and outside the warehouse which stores those universe models.

In short, there are many many different time lines in which there are many many "consciousnesses statistically similar to us - all who could sense a sense of a self", but they are all different "selves" and are completely not us - not any one of our selves. Each of our selves exists and ONLY EXISTS in only one time line - I used the term RRH - and only exist in the front tip of this very one RRH's moving momentum - that is - the "now".

These being said, we can't exist in any different time lines, we can't exist in any past points on this time line's history trailing, and we can't stop or pause moving with this time line's flowing, each of our selves is lethally bound to the front tip of one and only one time line's flowing - our sense of "now", and all the people in this forum, all the people in our commonly shared time line exist in a same RRH - more precisely - exist and only exist at the front tip of this same RRH's moving momentum - the "now". And the fundamental basis of our senses of our "self"'s existence, is our senses of immediate past moment - now - imminent next moment, immediate past moment - now - imminent next moment, immediate past moment - now - imminent next moment, immediate past moment - now - imminent next moment, and so on and so on, and this sense is keeping moving through the warehouse which stores static 3 dimensional universe models, along with the moving of our commonly shared time line - which I call RRH.
 
I also agree with you, dear @J Randall Murphy, on that what I said are all my postulation - which are immature - and I should have stated clearly that I didn't mean them as a certainty truth and fact. I only present these ideas as a source for further thinking and discussing. And I'm open to different opinions.

I haven't finished reading all your posts in this thread but I currently have found that it seems I do not diverge with you in any opinion, at least no major divergence, yes, I agree with you, I think you are right, the copies ARE NOT US, and your notion of copies of us is in some minor way slightly similar to what I call the residual shadowy records of us.

Both notions of yours and mine, are that there are somethings which are statistically in the statuses similar to those of us, but speaking to our senses of "self", it has some deeper, and irreplaceable meaning or should I call it information, which is stored not inside of any time line or any universe model or what I called the "warehouse".

The Creator did all these creation in a higher dimension beyond all the time lines, beyond all the possibilities of universe models on all the points of time, and beyond all the "warehouses" to store all these universe models. The Creator may create two different RRH to penetrate the warehouse following the exactly same path, thus there will be two different "you"s and "me"s who are respectively in the mirrored pairs of exactly same statuses contrasting on each point on the scale of time axis ruler - of course in two different RRH - or should I call it time line at your ease to understand. But still, inside each of these mirrored pairs, the two "you"s are not the same "self", and the two "me"s are not the same "self", they look in the exactly same statuses contrasting in all the same time point, but the information regarding their different "selves" is stored in somewhere of the Creator's realm outside of those time lines and other places blah blah blah blah I mentioned in the front of this paragraph.
 
It appears that you are a very deep thinker, and although I might have said some things a little differently, much of what you say makes perfect sense to me. Where we might diverge in our thinking is on two points:
  1. The premise that there is a universe creator and that we are in one such universe is not a certainty.
  2. The premise that if there is a universe creator, that the universe's timeline ( along with our data ) is stored in some sort of memory, is also not a certainty.
It may be the case that there is no universe creator ( we don't know for sure ). Assuming that either there is or isn't, is a matter of faith rather than fact. But if we consider them as possibilities for the sake of exploration, if there is no universe creator, then the universe we're in is the only one there is, and logically it cannot be capable of storing itself inside itself — it can only be itself, in which case we are always "us" regardless of the situation, until such time as we cease to exist in this universe as "us" — The end.

However, given the possibility that our universe could be a construct devised by some creator in another universe, we cannot rule out the possibility that such a creator may have set it up in such a way that it stores a record of everything that happens,. That is the only possibility for a loophole that could facilitate what we might assume to be some sort of afterlife. The problem with that, is that if that is the case, then everything about you in that afterlife is only a copy. It's not the original "you".

Also, to speak more directly to the model you describe in your post, what we seem to be imagining is a situation that in my own reflections along similar lines, I describe as a quantized timeline. In other words, as you suggest, objective reality exists in a series of frames that we perceive in the now.

This could very well be the case, but again we don't know for sure. However if it is the case, then each frame ( or quanta of time ) is distinct from the one before, in which case as time unfolds into the future, we are always copies ( or replicas ), in which case, if we are always copies, then whether or not we end-up being copies in some afterlife continuum, is of no conceptual difference with respect to the notion of our "selves" than being a copy in the next frame of this continuum.

So in the end, the only possibilities that allow for there to be anything we call an afterlife, end-up with us being copies of our former selves, not the originals, as those are always extant in some former "frame". So the idea that afterlives constitute some "continuity" of consciousness ( or anything else for that matter ), is either purely illusory, or it just doesn't happen. There is only one "you" and anything else can only be a copy. That copy might even think it's the original "you", but there's no way it can be. Either way, only you are "you", and as you suggest, it only exists in the here and "now".
One very important thing I don't know how to explain. I'm very sorry since I didn't make this meaning of mine clearly, covering my face, bitter smile.

I did express the meaning that the information of our past really is stored, stored forever. But I explicitly wished to express that, those past information are not "us" - in other words - are not "our selves".

Our "selves" are not an object, or a set of statuses, or a set of information to store those statuses, our "selves" are a moving momentum residing in the front tip of a time line's flowing - which I call RRH. When this RRH runs to the time point of some dot time in 2020, we are in that dot time in 2020 - of course that has passed - now this RRH has reached one time point of 2021, we are here, in now, some time in 2021, leaving that "past us" as a "residual shadowy records", which records our past information forever but that isn't our "selves".

Our "selves" exist and only exist in the front tip of this RRH's moving momentum, even if our past is recorded there as "residual shadowy records" forever. We are always in "now", the idea implied by this statement that our statuses change every moment doesn't imply we are a different person every moment, our statuses change every moment but our "self" remains the same "self" as long as WE ARE MOVING ALONG WITH THIS RRH, and are always residing in the front tip of this RRH's moving momentum, we are not any dot point in our past - not any point on the history trailing of this RRH's ever moving - those are only "residual shadowy records" left by us when we move along with this RRH like taking on a running train piercing through a sequence of 3 dimensional universe models.
 
Note dear J Randall Murphy
what I'm going to say in this post doesn't serve as a complete reply to your opinions, it will only be a quick reply to say something I think important to clarify my meaning which I didn't express clearly in my previous post. I need to do some preparation for tomorrow's work soon before going to sleep.

Thank you for your reading my poorly written English paragraphs and thank you for replying to me. I didn't make some meanings clearly so caused your slightly misunderstanding to my opinion stance, sorry but it was to be expected because English language is not my mother tongue.

What you said about the divergence of some opinion stances between yours and mine, is actually not the divergence, but the consensus.

You interpreted my meaning as, I meant the Creator created many many different time lines to run through that warehouse which stores every possibility of universe model in every point of time, yes, you are right, I did mean so.

You interpreted my meaning as, I meant each of our selves exists simultaneously in those different time lines, no, I didn't mean so.

My actual opinions are exactly the same as yours: the different fates of us in different time lines have nothing to do with "us" - or should I say each of "our selves" - you call them the copy of us, I call them different "selves" which reside in a different RRH(Red Running Hike or Red Running Ribbon) and which are irrelevant to our senses of "our selves" but have the statistically similar statuses of those of ours.

The Creator firstly created the warehouse in a fourth dimension space, to store every possible static universe model in every point of time, then the Creator created numerous different RRHs or should I call it time lines to run through those universe models.

Our selves reside in a same time line - and we only exist in this time line's front tip - that is the "now" - and our existences are moving along with this time line's flowing.

There are different time lines, in which there are different "persons" who are statistically similar or even the same as our statuses in some or all of the same scale points of time, but I didn't mean or imply those "persons" in those "different time lines" are the same "self" as us in this time line - our commonly shared time line.

In this sense, we actually agree with each other and we are at the same stance - by your expression - those copies are not us.

But I do not call them copies, since I believe the origin - or the prototype archetype template doesn't exist in any of those time lines. I postulate the origin exists outside of all time lines - in a higher dimension, and obviously, the Creator doesn't exist in any of those universe models, the Creator exists in some dimension outside of those universe models and outside the warehouse which stores those universe models.

In short, there are many many different time lines in which there are many many "consciousnesses statistically similar to us - all who could sense a sense of a self", but they are all different "selves" and are completely not us - not any one of our selves. Each of our selves exists and ONLY EXISTS in only one time line - I used the term RRH - and only exist in the front tip of this very one RRH's moving momentum - that is - the "now".

These being said, we can't exist in any different time lines, we can't exist in any past points on this time line's history trailing, and we can't stop or pause moving with this time line's flowing, each of our selves is lethally bound to the front tip of one and only one time line's flowing - our sense of "now", and all the people in this forum, all the people in our commonly shared time line exist in a same RRH - more precisely - exist and only exist at the front tip of this same RRH's moving momentum - the "now". And the fundamental basis of our senses of our "self"'s existence, is our senses of immediate past moment - now - imminent next moment, immediate past moment - now - imminent next moment, immediate past moment - now - imminent next moment, immediate past moment - now - imminent next moment, and so on and so on, and this sense is keeping moving through the warehouse which stores static 3 dimensional universe models, along with the moving of our commonly shared time line - which I call RRH.
Depending on on how we interpret the word "dimension", That all seems coherent and plausible. BTW, I think you express yourself very well in English. I can tell it's a little different, but I get what you're saying. Thank you for this interesting exchange.
 
I don't think this is from NDERF.
I copied and pasted it verbatim from their website. Of course it isn't everything they have, and it's obviously cherry picked, but it is an interesting finding nevertheless. You might also find the exchange between tanatulanebula and I relevant to the reasoning behind my conclusion.

I welcome any specific reasoning that poses sufficient counterpoint to displace that conclusion. However that doesn't mean posting reams of links to hordes of other people's research consisting of far too many facets to address any specific issue. That is known as the Gish gallop argument, and it's non-constructive in a forum setting like this.

I've taken a deep dive into this pool many times already, and have always surfaced in the same place. If there is anything that can get beyond it, it needs to address specific issues in this post here. Or, at the very least, it needs to provide sufficient reason to not consider that reasoning as better than some other alternative, in which case we can have a look at that.

For example, perhaps there is some view of what constitutes "you" as a "person", that isn't dependent on the set of criteria we normally use to establish personal identity, e.g. the physical ( including neurological ) features and processes that are directly linked to our appearance and personality; but that also doesn't simply ignore or deem them as irrelevant ( because they're not irrelevant at all ).
 
Last edited:
In my exploration of that issue I found that death is defined differently in different jurisdictions, and brain death is very different from clinical death, and it is very rare for patients to get actual brain death tests via EEG to determine brain death, and even then, studies show, activity still takes place much deeper than a surface EEG shows.

Also, auditory senses are among the last to die so they take a long time to flatten on an EEG. I know this from personal observation. So it's entirely conceivable that where death has been assumed, the patients weren't actually "dead", and that the patients are in fact receiving auditory signals on a subconscious level that are later remembered in a way that make it seem to them as if they were experiencing it in real time, when in-fact they weren't.

These sorts of incidents are obviously more common than most people think. My late spouse's sister woke-up in a morgue inside a body bag after being pronounced dead by mistake.

Also, from my firsthand discussions with doctors, I was told that they have never heard of a case where a patient has been pronounced brain-dead after a full EEG scan, but suddenly come back to life. If you have a verifiable references, by all means, post them.

I don't know about all that. Several issues to unpack there. I don't see any reason a universe creator isn't a possibility. Nor do I see any reason that a universe creator wouldn't make a universe that itself is capable of creating. In fact, it seems to me that any entity capable of creating universes, would find self-evolving universes much more interesting than boring pre-programed universes. But who knows? I guess it depends on how interesting you want your universe creator to be.

Not exactly. I would say it's actually the opposite. It's objective reality that is non-partial — simply what it is, outside the filters of Platos cave.

Not really. I don't start with the assumption that life after death as is typically imagined is an impossibility, so that is not the "set of conditions" I begin with. The set of conditions I begin with is what is known with a high degree of scientific confidence. Then I extrapolate from there what the possibilities are ( and are not ).

I'm not sure we're looking at "consensus reality" in the same way. I see consensus reality as an agreement between multiple individuals as to what constitutes a given reality.

Thanks. I find these discussions very interesting from a variety of perspectives. The thing to take away from my position is that I accept that there are phenomena that are genuine, but that some interpretations of them cannot be accurate, and therefore time could be better spent on other avenues of investigation.
There's a lot contradictions in your statements but not interested in going through them all just this:
I basically made point in the objective/subjective we can not get out of ourselves, there is no otherside to consciousness, we can not see seeing hence there is no pure objectivity..i hope that point is clear without these smoke screens your constantly throwing up , extrapolations which have nothing to do with what i state.
You contradicted that statement/idea.
Then how do you get on the other side of your own consciousness?
 
There's a lot contradictions in your statements but not interested in going through them all just this:
I basically made point in the objective/subjective we can not get out of ourselves, there is no otherside to consciousness, we can not see seeing hence there is no pure objectivity..i hope that point is clear without these smoke screens your constantly throwing up , extrapolations which have nothing to do with what i state.
You contradicted that statement/idea.
Then how do you get on the other side of your own consciousness?
There are no smoke screens, so it must be some form of communication problem. I'm not sure exactly where it is, but it seems to be with respect to the issue of the objective versus the subjective, wherein you're interpreting my statement to mean that a person can be 100% objective in their experience and evaluation of the world. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the world outside ourselves constitutes the objective world ( reality ), and I completely agree that we cannot know what that it's really like, we just perceive a VR rendering of it via our senses, which constitutes our subjective reality.

For example if we suppose that you own a red Ferrari that is parked in your driveway. It has its own objective existence, while the picture of it in your mind also exists, but is in a very different context we called the subjective. This is basic mind-matter dualism, so it may be the case that we are actually in complete agreement.
 
Last edited:
For example, perhaps there is some view of what constitutes "you" as a "person", that isn't dependent on the set of criteria we normally use to establish personal identity, e.g. the physical ( including neurological ) features and processes that are directly linked to our appearance and personality; but that also doesn't simply ignore or deem them as irrelevant ( because they're not irrelevant at all ).
I will explain my meaning from another angle of viewing partially for converging with the ideas in above paragraph written by J Randall Murphy.

I meticulously considered whether this post of mine should be applying a "quoting reply function" to J Randall Murphy's original paragraph, I think not, because my writing is always verbose due to the limitation of my English language mastery - I'm unable to express my meaning in a concise, effective and efficient way - so that would be a bothering to one whose paragraph I would quote. But I will explain how my opinions converge with that elicited paragraph written by J Randall Murphy.

I will still start from the Creator' creation of that warehouse which stores all the possibilities of static 3 dimensional phase frames of universe in all the points of time, the warehouse being like a exhibition hall of numerous static 3 dimensional universe models, this is a ridiculously big, bold imagination, I need to emphasize that I do mean so - this meaning - the Creator firstly created a warehouse to store all the possibilities of static 3 dimensional phase frames of universe in all the points of time - not any single frame left to be forgotten.

Let me take an example - perhaps not proper - a static 3 dimensional phase frame of universe in this dot time: year 2021 October twelfth Tuesday New York time midnight 00:35 37 second some millisecond and nanosecond blah blah blah blah and some Planck time point, a buddy living across the road to reader of this post is attending a banquet of wedding of him and actress Scarlett Johansson, no matter how this possibility sounds irrational and lunatic, the static 3 dimensional universe model which represents this possibility in this specific point of time does exist in that warehouse created by the Creator. If you can be crazy enough to accept this premise of mine, you probably won't mind to accept something astronomically much more crazy than this example - all the possibilities astronomically much more crazy than any best crazy imagination you can make out of your mind do exist in that warehouse.

Next, let us focus on you, all the past, now, and future fates of you exist in that warehouse as a sequence of consecutive static 3 dimensional phase frames of universe, and all the possibilities of the fates of your past, now and future which either didn't really happen or haven't been determined, all exist in that warehouse, all the static 3 dimensional phase frames of universe which contain a person similar to you - representing all the possible fates of you in all the possible time you exist - do exist in that warehouse. The warehouse contains all the information about you in every point of time, including all your neurological features and processes that are directly linked to your appearance and personality and all your little secrets and even the things about you without your particularly aware of in any single point of time, more than this, the warehouse also contains all the information of all the possible fates of you in all points of time which didn't happen on you and is not happening on you and were not to happen on you, all the all information are all stored in each of static 3 dimensional universe model exhibited in this vast warehouse exhibition hall - without a single information ever escaping from or being forgotten by the Creator.

Next I will say a thing very very important, I couldn't emphasize sufficiently how important it is to understand what I'm going to say: those premises being set, where are your "self"???? You might immediately and intuitively think that your "self" must exist somewhere in one or some of those 3 dimensional universe models, but listen to me, dear, your "self" doesn't exist anywhere in that warehouse, at least not yet, all the 3 dimensional models which are in total in a quantity well beyond the notion of "infinity" and beyond our human being's comprehension and language's expression, along with the unspeakable vast warehouse which accommodates a fourth dimension space to store all of them, all DO NOT contain the existence of anyone's "self", there isn't your "self", my "self", or anyone's "self" existing anywhere in that warehouse.

You might say:
"No no, since there must be a set of information stored in one of those 3 dimensional universe models, which would be exactly the same as my current situational statistics, how could this tarantulanebula say that my self doesn't exist anywhere in that warehouse?"

Note, what I'm going to say doesn't mean to expect anyone would "agree" with me, I only put forward this idea of mine as a source for further thinking and discussing, which actually can give some elusive puzzles a reasonable explanation. I wish you don't need to "agree" with me, as I do not think I'm "correct", you only read my saying like listening to a story.

OK, in another words, I suggest, our "self" is not an object, is not a set of statuses, is not a set of information to describe those statuses, and thus doesn't exist in that warehouse one of whose functions is to store all the possible information in all the points of time, so how our "self" came into existence?

The warehouse doesn't contain the existence of our "self", this doesn't mean it is irrelevant to the existence of our "self", it is actually a necessary important prerequisite of the existence of our "self" - which I call - the first step of the Creator's creation.

Then the Creator created a RRH, or many RRHs, to let them run through this warehouse bumping into static 3 dimensional universe models one by another following a certain path, and our "self" exists and only exists at the front tip - the moving momentum - of one such a RRH. Our "self" moves with this RRH and we do not linger around anywhere on its past running trail - we only follow its "now".

I do not have anytime left tonight, I'm sorry, my job is a tyrannical monster, later if I could have a rest day I may write further. T_T T_T T_T T_T So sad I didn't finish writing and guess not many could get what I wish to express.

I say first quickly about this: my opinion converge exactly with
J Randall Murphy
's saying that those physical ( including neurological ) features and processes that are directly linked to our appearance and personality are not irrelevant to our "self".

The statistics information is stored in that warehouse, it is very important to our existence because it is a prerequisite of our existence, but not all the prerequisite. Those information is a necessity but we are not those information themselves. It is the RRH bumping into those information and keeps moving through consecutive frame of information forming a moving momentum - coarsely equivalent to "now" - which accommodates where we exist sorry no time to write for now.
 
I will explain my meaning from another angle of viewing partially for converging with the ideas in above paragraph written by J Randall Murphy ...
Thanks. It might be the case that the universe is setup in the way that you describe, but it still doesn't alter the logic of my reasoning, because no matter how it is setup, no matter how convoluted you want to make it, in the end, everything that defines your identity — that which is deemed to constitute "you", is either causally linked to our material existence, or simply exists as some discreet manifestation of a "possible fate" stored in this vast warehouse. Either way, there is no "continuity of consciousness" ( that I can see ). The "warehouse model" ends up being functionally the same as the quantized time model, only no warehouse is needed, So another dead end ( pardon the pun ) where afterlives are concerned.
 
I haven't talked anything about the possibility or impossibility of the afterlife, but if I could eventually finish writing my idea about the question what is our "self", soon or later it will cover the afterlife topic and what will it mean in my model of hypothesis. Now is not the time.

I've talked long paragraphs about the "warehouse" but still failed to clearly depict its concept which is very likely to lead to reader's misunderstanding. I wished to postpone a more comprehensive narration for the story of the "warehouse" because my key point is focusing on explaining the concept of RRH, so I wished to set every premise and reach to talking about RRH as soon as possible.

But I think I still need to say some more things about the "warehouse" prior to talking RRH, all for that, clarifying somethings about the "warehouse" is also the key for me to try explaining the idea of RRH clearly.

One important thing about the "warehouse" is its layout, I currently do not have the time to extend too much on the discussion about its layout. I analogized the "warehouse" as an exhibition hall of all the possible 3 dimensional universe phase frames in every point of time from the start of time to the end of time, so reader could naturally feel I meant to depict the 3 dimensional frames of universe as like models laid and arranged discretely in a hall. But it was only meant to be an initial simple exemplified pattern for the easiest understanding. It might not be like that, rather, it may be continuous without any "gap" between the 3 dimensional universe models or each of the 3 dimensional universe models is liquified from the point of view of an fourth or above fourth dimension. Also the 3 dimensional universe models are not randomly arranged - they are laid in a complex order - or should I say forming a complex matrix. I stop extending this topic here because there can be endless discussion about the layout of the "warehouse" which will further defer the important narration for the RRH.

Another important thing about the "warehouse" is, since it contains all the possibilities of a person's information in every point of time, people will naturally think the warehouse "contains" us or we are "in" the warehouse. Note, when I say "all of a person's information is in the warehouse" I don't mean "a person himself or herself is in the warehouse".

I understand it is naturally for people to think our "self" is an object, a tangible entity you could point at or refer to, or a set of statuses, or a set of information to describe those statuses, or a complex structure not all made of solid particles but also some electronic magnetic fields or photons or probability waves and so on or some more advanced physics concepts. People were proud when first discovered the important fact and summarized it as a scientific principle that, we life forms are alive because we have a structured form that is exquisitely coordinated, marvelously intricately designed, highly complex and abundant of information, never seen in lifeless objects, so people naturally think it is those structures which form our "self" and it is their complexity which makes us lives. Contrasting the complexity of stones to proteins, machines to our nerve systems people would feel the structure is why we exist and the complexity is why we are lives. To jump out of confinement of this long lived old recognition of what is our "self" is difficult.

We are not structures, the structures and their complexity do serve as a prerequisite of our "self"'s existence, but our "self" is not equal to a set of structure, it is a bit difficult to understand.

All the statuses of the person structure possible in all points on the time ruler axis do exist in that fourth dimension warehouse, but there isn't anyone's "self" inside of that warehouse. That warehouse only stores a set of information in each of those universe models. You can safely and correctly view that warehouse as a "dead" warehouse even if it stores all the possible information about you - all the structures responsible to form everything about you - your physical conditions and your emotions - in all the points on the time ruler axis from the start to the end of time - and all the possibilities either has happened on you or didn't really happen on you.

The Creator did the first step to create that warehouse, then Creator did the second step - created a thing I call RRH separately in another realm completely outside of where Creator created that warehouse. The Creator then let an RRH or many RRHs to run through that warehouse thus our "self" came into existence - we ride on the front tip of one and only one such a kind of RRH and reside in and only in its heading pinnacle or should I say an intangible moving momentum of an RRH - moving along with this RRH bumping into 3 dimensional models one by another thus forming our basis sense of immediate before - now - imminent next moment - immediate before - now - imminent next moment - and so on and so on thus forming our "self"'s existence.

If viewing our RRH bumping into 3 dimensional universe models you could sometimes mistake that RRH overlaps with those 3 dimensional universe models and they become one, but that's wrong, they are forever separate never melt into each other, when the RRH passes through a 3 dimensional universe model, the latter still be its original state holding its innate information and the RRH still keep running and bumping and we are always riding at its front tip.

I should draw pictures to demonstrate my meaning but now I do not have any time any single second my life is busy like crazy I'm so much pressures sigh.
 
Glad to see that discussion, any extension discussion welcomed. Lest that I've never succeeded in getting anyone understand my meaning, may I ask J Randall Murphy, what does this English word "offshoot" mean in English language, and what its meaning you were referring to in your previous post?

I checked dictionary, "offshoot" is often used as carrying a meaning of "derivative", "ramification", but it also has some usage of being relevant to meaning of "dissension", if you meant we have dissension, then probably I haven't succeeded in getting you understand what I mean, it would be my bad but I think it doesn't matter, I will take another attempt to explain my meaning.

If you suggest, my mentioning that warehouse was served for a mechanism for the possibility of afterlife, then you misunderstood me. I said that warehouse is for storing information of all the 3 dimensional universe models in all possibilities in all time, but I explicitly said that the information is not equal to our "self", and that warehouse doesn't contain our "self"'s existence even if it contains all the information of all the 3 dimensional universe models. I even used the word "dead" to describe that warehouse to mean that our "self"'s existence requires prerequisites more than just the universe models and the information stored in that warehouse, and the overall prerequisites are even more stern than just a set of sufficiently complex and properly delimited biological structures in universe models.

I will take another attempt to explain the concept of RRH and how it is served for generating and maintaining the existence of our "self", thus answering the question of what is the essence of our "self".

The Creator created the "many 3 dimensional universe models in the warehouse" and "some RRHs" completely separately in two different places, imagine one place is the parlor of Creator's estate, while another is the bedroom of Creator's estate. Then in the courtyard of Creator's estate, the Creator put these two devices - warehouse and one of such RRHs - together, but note, they will be separate forever, never melt into each other even if they are going to "touch" each other.

The Creator let one RRH run through the warehouse like a train running through a tunnel, like an eel wandering in the water, like little red riding hood traversing through the forest. An RRH and its locomotion form a ribbon, which is composed of 3 parts:
1, the history trail of this RRH;
2, the RRH itself which you can imagine as a dot with zero size or an intangible moving momentum which doesn't have a figure;
3, the future route of this RRH which is undetermined and indefinite at least speaking to RRH itself.

The whole three parts of this ribbon penetrate the warehouse, of course when the RRH runs through the warehouse it keeps bumping into 3 dimensional universe models - or should I say universe's 3 dimensional frames in each scale point on the time ruler axis - one by another, leaving a trail behind it which makes is as being the front tip of the parts of ribbon of which either has finished moving or has been running. You can tell that the ribbon seems having been overlapped with all the 3 dimensional frames of universe that the RRH has passed through, but they do not melt into each other.

After the penetrating process, all the collided 3 dimensional universe frames remain intact, original, waiting to be reused by other RRHs' penetration.

You can say our "self" is in essence a such RRH, but, not a whole RRH, rather, each of our "self"s is a part of an RRH. If I could have time later I will say our "self"'s relationship with these things which many people confuse with the concept of our "self":
1, our history - the relationship between our history and our "self";
2, the structure and information - of course in different time we have varying structure and information - the relationship of our structure and information with our "self";
3, the other possibilities of our fates - the relationship between other possibilities of our fates and our "self";
4, the duplicate route of another RRH - the relationship between a duplicate route of another RRH with our "self".
If you take the understanding of my hypothesis model that the Creator first created the warehouse then created some RRHs then let some RRH runs through the warehouse, you can tell what each part of this whole scene represents:
1, our history is like the moving trail of an RRH;
2, the structure and information are like the originally "dead" warehouse before Creator letting any RRH run through it;
3, the other possibilities of our fates are like those 3 dimensional universe models which our RRH didn't really bumped into;
4, the duplicate route of another RRH is like there is another person exactly the same of each of us but is on another RRH - although overlapping with our RRH but never melt into our RRH and never could be one with our RRH - and is not the same "self" of each of us.
I do not have time to continue writing now T_T T_T T_T T_T.

Note, sometimes often I used either phrase "3 dimensional universe models" or "3 dimensional universe frames" randomly, I mean them actually the same meaning, just that the version of "models" is easier to understand while the version of "frames" additionally carries some implication that the "models" are not littered chaotically inside the warehouse but rather, they are immaculately arranged by an extremely complicated rule - the time frame is definitely involved in.
 
Glad to see that discussion, any extension discussion welcomed. Lest that I've never succeeded in getting anyone understand my meaning, may I ask J Randall Murphy, what does this English word "offshoot" mean in English language, and what its meaning you were referring to in your previous post?
I'm using the word "offshoot" to indicate that our discussion is related to the thread's primary subject matter ( NDES and afterlives ), but isn't necessarily relevant to it in all respects. This was evoked by your comment that you never said anything about afterlives. I agree. I'm not suggesting you were. I was just re-linking the subjects for the sake of maintaining some relevance to the thread. Otherwise it could be considered a sort of hijacking that deserves its own thread — which maybe it does.
I will take another attempt to explain the concept of RRH and how it is served for generating and maintaining the existence of our "self", thus answering the question of what is the essence of our "self" ...

You can say our "self" is in essence a such RRH, but, not a whole RRH, rather, each of our "self"s is a part of an RRH. If I could have time later I will say our "self"'s relationship with these things which many people confuse with the concept of our "self" ...
It seems to me that you've defined the word "self" to fit your model rather than building your model to accommodate more objective ways of looking at it. That doesn't mean that your model isn't internally coherent. If I were to buy into your version of what "self" is, then I would have to agree that if I understand it correctly ( and I think I do ), that it is one possible model for a larger reality. It's quite interesting.

At the same time, regardless of whether or not your model was intended to address the issue of afterlives, I felt that in relevance to the topic of the thread, it doesn't allow for afterlives the way they are normally imagined. If you don't want to address that issue, it's perfectly fine with me. I don't think your model needs to account for afterlives in order to be coherent or possible.
 
Last edited:
Sigh, I haven't successfully got your understanding me. But it doesn't matter, I will continue trying to explain.

I know it's very easy for me to get people understand my notion of that warehouse, since it is relevant to notion of parallel universe which people are familiar with. But I never mentioned the phrase parallel universe in previous posts, why? Because my idea of that warehouse is also very different from the parallel universe and my hypothetical model addresses a very important concept that people often confuse "the dead static parallel universe frames" with "to experience a long sequence of 3 dimensional universe frames", this is a very severe problem which caused many confusion when people think about the idea of parallel universe. But now I do not have the time to get into addressing this problem in details.

I also know it's very difficult for me to get people understand my notion of RRH, which is my key point to help people understand my hypothesis of answering the question: what is our "self". Two reasons of this are:

1, People can't jump out of the habit of thinking our "self" is an object, a structure, or a set of information in a 3 dimensional universe. I specifically suggest this is wrong. Each of our "self" is a part of the moving momentum of an RRH which is sent by the Creator to traverse through that fourth dimension warehouse in which there stores all the possible 3 dimensional universe models in all frames of time. In that warehouse all the 3 dimensional universe models are immaculately arranged in a complex but strictly organized and correlated order and formation, and the RRH where our "self" exists traverses through that warehouse bumping into 3 dimensional universe models continuously one by another following a set of certain rules strictly. Both after the RRH finishes traversing and long before the Creator started to send the RRH to traverse through the warehouse, the warehouse always remains intact, original, unchanged, static, and "dead".

2, I myself dislike to pay attention to people's self generated whimsical imagination streaking(spree, revel, often silly) which is not according to objective world input investigation or discovery. So I understand people won't have the patience to read my verbose story of these hypothetical models. But I argue that, since in the foreseeable future there probably won't be any objective world input to help us get a tiniest advance into understanding the question of what is our "self", and I haven't seen any better way to address reasonable solutions to some paradoxes ensued when people consider the question of what is our "self", thought experiments like these are the last resort and these definitely won't be explained well in merely several sentences.

I'm not trying to deliberately make a whimsical story and enforce the objective reality to align with my hypothesis purely out of my imagination. I admit this hypothesis lacks objective input, and starting as far as from contriving a concept of warehouse and pretending being in a perspective of the Creator all sound silly and not loyal to the truth and objectivity, which is an attitude I myself often dislike. But despite the fact that upon such question of what is the fundamental essence and the precise definition of our "self" there won't be any objective proof to expect, my hypothesis also solves several paradoxes which have long kept confusing people. So it is the result driven motive for my to take this step. And contriving those analogies is because I have no better method to try expressing clearly these concepts.

Some of the problems which can be quite reasonably solved by my hypothesis include:
1, If all of a person's information is duplicated, whether the duplicate will be the same "self" as the original?
2, If some parts of a person are replaced, he/she would remain himself/herself, but if all parts of that person are replaced? If all the particles forming that person's body have been changed all over by metabolic and other processes? So how many parts being replaced still keeps one person himself/herself and how many doesn't?
3, Time travel paradox.

I do not have the time to go into details for now. In short, if one can really understand my key points:
1, The Creator created the warehouse and the RRHs separately.
2, The warehouse is where all the vivid information of possible 3 dimensional universe models in all frames of time is stored but they themselves still don't contain anyone's "self" - in other words - those information is only information they are static and dead - and our "self" is not equal to those information.
3, The Creator lets one RRH traverse through that warehouse following a certain set of rules and routes and bumping into 3 dimensional models one by another, thus our "self" comes into existence - exists in and ONLY in ONE such an RRH and always in this RRH's head front tip - its moving momentum - our senses of "now".

As to the off topic reminders, I vindicate that if one wishes to keep this thread focusing on the topic relating to afterlife, then answering the question of what is our "self" is at least one of the very keys and premises. I admit my posts are too long and too verbose to the degree as can properly form a separate topic and thread, but the longevity is inevitable no matter where to discuss the question of what is our "self" because it's difficult to explain.

Not time left to write today.
 
Last edited:
Sigh, I haven't successfully got your understanding me.
I think I probably understand your model better than you think I do. When you say "warehouse" you're referring to storage, and storage is synonymous with memory, so your warehouse can be thought of as a special type of memory that serves the particular purpose you describe.

My concept of self is that it is entirely unique and doesn't exist simultaneously in more than one place other than that delineated by the functioning complete individual ( mind and body ) in the here and now. All other possibilities are either unrealized variables or some kind of copy. In other words we exist simultaneously in more than one point in space in the sense that each particle that makes up who we are is in a different location relative to the others. For example, the particles in our hands aren't in the same location as those in our feet, but our hands and feet are both still part of our selves.

For the mind, if we include consciousness as a part of that, then our consciousness is always a unique perspective as defined by some 3D vector. In other words each individual has their own experience of the world from their own unique vantage point. As soon as that vantage point becomes two different vantage points, we have two different individuals.

This perspective isn't to be confused with the idea that perhaps we could have two separate cameras in different locations, and observe them together, thereby experiencing two different vantage points simultaneously, because the viewer is still watching both feeds from a single location. In other words it's like a single person watching a split screen.

This perspective also isn't to be confused with the idea of remote viewing or astral travel, where it is assumed that the person's consciousness is floating someplace outside the experiencers actual location. Those experiences are still taking place inside the head of the experiencer, and the experiencer is not out near Pluto, or wherever the imagery is being delivered from – if it's actual objective data at all.

The experiencer is simply watching a mind movie of some remote location that may or may not actually reflect the objective reality of the place at all, and even if it does, it still doesn't mean that the person's consciousness floated out there to get it. Rather, it was either generated or delivered to the experiencer by some means that isn't fully understood.
 
Last edited:
When you say "warehouse" you're referring to storage, and storage is synonymous with memory, so your warehouse can be thought of as a special type of memory that serves the particular purpose you describe.
Absolutely not.
Completely not like this.
I didn't mean any correlation for the "warehouse" with our human's memory.
I'm a bit frustrated that I completely failed in making anyone understand what I mean.

Of course it is my fault. Forget it.

Later if I could have time and find a means I will try to draw pictures to illustrate my meaning, no time for now.

For quick explanation. I said in many posts that the "warehouse" contains nothing of a consciousness which could have a sense and awareness of "self", I even used the word "dead" to describe the "warehouse". In my settings it contains all the possibilities of static universe models in all points of time, but those what it contains are information, and our "self" ARE NOT EQUAL TO A SET OF INFORMATION.

And what the warehouse stores, are also absolutely NOT any person's memories.

The Creator created the "warehouse" and "RRHs" separately, and after the Created prepared well both "warehouse" and one or some "RRHs", the Creator let one or some "RRHs" pierce through the warehouse, bumping into those static 3 dimensional universe models one by another, thus our "self" comes into existence, our "self" exists as in and only in one and only one such an RRH's front tip - its moving momentum - our sense of "now".

Without an RRH passing through it, the "warehouse" will still be itself in its primordial appearance, still containing all the possible 3 dimensional universe models in all points of time, but without an RRH being in the process of passing through it, our "self" doesn't exist.

I know it's only the repeat of the same way of expression as in several of my previous posts, if my previous posts can't make people understand my meaning, neither could this post, so, sigh, later let me think about will there be other method.
 
Top