Dr. Gregory Shushan, NDEs Vs. Transhumanism |556|

You’re adding the “brain-body system” assumption to their picture of “when I die….”.
No — I'm not "adding" anything. In my experience on the subject, the assumption most people who believe in afterlives make, is that when they die, meaning when their body dies here, something else that they consider to be them carries on over there ( wherever that is ). Simply because I call their body a "brain-body system" is for all intent and purpose the same thing, but just more precise.
Most people if you asked them specifically wouldn’t agree with this phrasing for a clear reason. Ask one stranger next time you get a chance: “do you think it’s your brain-body system that exists in the other side?” Let me know what the first one says.
That's not what I'm suggesting at all — you still don't get what I'm saying. I'm actually saying the opposite of what you think I'm saying. Interesting example of a challenge in communication.
I find your assumption far more loop-holey than mine.
That's because you still don't seem to get it, but like I said, that could just be me being lousy at explaining things.
I would never say “it’s impossible that consciousness is a fluke” because thinking scientifically I understand that all of my comprehension/judgment/et all is subjective. Instead (as a scientist apparently) I say “I find it unlikely.”
I don't claim “it’s impossible that consciousness is a fluke”. That's a different conversation.
 
Last edited:
Here is the new religion of the simulation being indoctrinated into young kids:

I watched the first 5 minutes of the video and skimmed through the rest till the end. It is thought-provoking! But is the simulation view of reality being pushed by the current ruling class?
(I'm somewhat out of touch with popular culture)

I agree on the other things you wrote Hurmanetar
 
Why not aliens? They could be the key to the whole thing. There's more evidence in support of that than any other theory — that is except the theory that NDEs are a product of brain function. Logically, brain function is the first most rational explanation. Afterlives as people typically think of them are impossible, and alternate universes, although possible, are much farther out there than brain function or aliens. And let's not forget the hoaxes.

Personally, I like a combination of brain function, alternate universes, and aliens, but what I prefer doesn't mean I think it's true. I just think it's the most interesting ( to me ). Good show & guest ( as usual ).

On the issue of afterlives and technology — I'm sure most of us have already seen this one ...


You don't even seem to be taking into account the available evidence though. There's a lot of evidence for aliens, as well as evidence that consciousness is fundamental / exists without the brain

And just because there are hoaxes, doesn't mean the underlying phenomenon on which the hoaxes were based doesn't exist.

That's why a statement as the one quoted in the article massively over-reaches:
'All these supposed trips to heaven are hoaxes'
 
the theory that NDEs are a product of brain function. Logically, brain function is the first most rational explanation.

What is logical depends on the information one has. If one gives credence to outer body experiences, psychic spying, shared death experiences, accurate reporting by the patient of what happened in the emergency room during clinical death, then the logical / rational explanation is that consciousness somehow exists beyond the brain.

This is especially logical when one considers that the evidence for NDEs is from across the world and throughout history, as Gregory Shushan's work shows

Afterlives as people typically think of them are impossible

So we can wrestle this topic to the ground, what do you mean exactly by 'afterlives as people typically think of them'?
 
Personally, I like a combination of brain function, alternate universes, and aliens, but what I prefer doesn't mean I think it's true.

This sort of formulation is what professional pseudo-sceptics typically use. It implies that those who think that e.g. aliens are real or that consciousness is fundamental are merely engaged in wishful thinking. In other words, it's a rhetorical instrument which shouldn't have any relevance to a debate. What matters is the evidence and the most likely explanation for the evidence.
 
Why not aliens?

Aliens are not disprovable, so the question is superfluous.

The relevant question is this:
What evidence is there for aliens? (specifically, intelligent others that are more powerful than humans)

There is abundant evidence for such beings, not only from the last hundred years, but throughout history and from across the world.

And the existence of such beings shouldn't be surprising, considering the vastness of the universe / the probability of there being planets that can sustain intelligent life-forms
 
Last edited:
PS for what it's worth, in the Bhagavad-Gita, other planets with intelligent life are explicitly mentioned. That in itself isn't of course compelling evidence. But it's cumulative... like with the evidence for NDEs and aliens, there is evidence not only from our present time, but also evidence going back into ancient times.
 
You’re adding the “brain-body system” assumption to their picture of “when I die….”. Most people if you asked them specifically wouldn’t agree with this phrasing for a clear reason. Ask one stranger next time you get a chance: “do you think it’s your brain-body system that exists in the other side?” Let me know what the first one says.
Genius wit Robbe. Love that one. :)
 
Simply because I call their body a "brain-body system" is for all intent and purpose the same thing, but just more precise.
It’s off the mark with regard to what most people expect is involved. Most people assume it’s something we can’t understand. Items we can understand don’t make up the equation. I don’t think you fully understand this.
That's not what I'm suggesting at all — you still don't get what I'm saying. I'm actually saying the opposite of what you think I'm saying. Interesting example of a challenge in communication.
What I think you’re saying:
The human consciousness experience is strictly human and therefore ends at death, including any associated i-ness or self.

Am I representing you accurately there? If so I would only change “including” to “excluding”, but/and I’d insist that neither is disprovable.
 
Last edited:
Genius wit Robbe. Love that one. :)
Thanks. My little “ask a stranger” bit was kinda cheap /not lvl3ish. I think what J Randall’s pushing is extremely important in regard to what qualifies as evidence, and I’m hoping he takes us further with it.
 
Last edited:
Thanks. My little “ask a stranger” bit was kinda cheap /not lvl3ish. I think what J Randall’s pushing is extremely important in regard to what qualifies as evidence, and I’m hoping he takes us further with it.

Even so, your quip was getting to an important point, that legitimate evidence has to take priority, and afterwards logic... rather than discarding legitimate evidence and then using logic.

So the evidence is primary.

As far as I can tell, the "consciousness does not exist beyond the brain" worldview cannot give credence to outer body experiences, psychic spying, shared death experiences, accurate reporting by the patient of what happened in the emergency room during clinical death... Otherwise the logical / rational explanation is that consciousness DOES exist beyond the brain
 
You don't even seem to be taking into account the available evidence though. There's a lot of evidence for aliens ...
You're probably not familiar with any of my involvement in ufology, so you wouldn't know that I'm pretty well informed on the subject. I can't comment on the absolute certainty of any specific case, but based on the preponderance of evidence and my own experience, I believe alien visitation is a reality.
... as well as evidence that consciousness is fundamental / exists without the brain
The topic of consciousness went on for thousands of posts on another forum where I became very well informed on it. The idea that consciousness is fundamental is a slippery slope into the same existential problems as everything else. We can certainly delve a little into that if you want, but it can get quite involved, so this post isn't the place to lay that all out.
And just because there are hoaxes, doesn't mean the underlying phenomenon on which the hoaxes were based doesn't exist.
I believe that the phenomenon is real. I just question the interpretation.
That's why a statement as the one quoted in the article massively over-reaches: 'All these supposed trips to heaven are hoaxes'
I would agree with that.
What is logical depends on the information one has. If one gives credence to outer body experiences, psychic spying, shared death experiences, accurate reporting by the patient of what happened in the emergency room during clinical death, then the logical / rational explanation is that consciousness somehow exists beyond the brain.
Exactly, and what a lot of people don't do is look close enough at the evidence. I do, and you've identified one of the areas where people don't — the idea of clinical death. In looking into that claim I found that clinical death is not the same as brain death, and that the criteria for it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction significantly. My life-partner's sister was declared dead and woke up in a body bag in the morgue.

Additionally, even brain death as determined by EEG can only detect surface level activity, and it's rarely performed because it's traditionally been expensive and time consuming. But the most iron clad reasoning is that NDEs are recalled from memory. So unless you don't think memory is a result of brain function, then logically the experiencer's brain had to be working well enough to record the memory onto its neurons.
This is especially logical when one considers that the evidence for NDEs is from across the world and throughout history, as Gregory Shushan's work shows
I've been down numerous paths that all lead to the same place and none of them solve the problems I just mentioned. If Shushan's work does, I'd be very interested in know exactly how, because I'm very confident, without even looking at it, that it doesn't. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean that the study of the phenomenon isn't a worthy pursuit ( I think it is ). Just because the cause can't be what people assume it to be, doesn't mean it's not interesting, or might not lead to significant new understandings
So we can wrestle this topic to the ground, what do you mean exactly by 'afterlives as people typically think of them'?
What I mean by what people typically think afterlifes are, is that generally speaking, it's been my experience, that believers have the notion that when they die here, meaning that when their body dies here in this realm, something else they see as them carries-on over there ( in some other realm ). For example a person might say something like, "When I die I'm going to a better place."
This sort of formulation is what professional pseudo-sceptics typically use. It implies that those who think that e.g. aliens are real or that consciousness is fundamental are merely engaged in wishful thinking.
That would be significantly different than the way I look at it.
In other words, it's a rhetorical instrument which shouldn't have any relevance to a debate. What matters is the evidence and the most likely explanation for the evidence.
We'd need to be careful not to conflate "rhetorical devices" with critical thinking, but in principle, I'd have to agree.
 
Last edited:
It’s off the mark with regard to what most people expect is involved. Most people assume it’s something we can’t understand. Items we can understand don’t make up the equation. I don’t think you fully understand this.
Like I said, maybe your experience and mine on the issue is very different. To add, the idea that people don't understand how something happens, isn't the same as what they typically think happens. The example, "When I die I'm going to a better place." doesn't require that they understand it, only that they have this notion of them dying here, and popping up over there ( like Heaven — or wherever that is ). This is by far the most common scenario I've run across.

Most Americans believe in heaven … and hell

What I think you’re saying: The human consciousness experience is strictly human and therefore ends at death, including any associated i-ness or self.
Am I representing you accurately there? If so I would only change “including” to “excluding”, but/and I’d insist that neither is disprovable.
What I'm saying is that consciousness is not the same as personal identity, and this misperception facilitates the belief that persons can carry-on after they die pretty-much the same as before. However, a closer look at that rationale and the evidence in support of it ultimately shows it to be faulty.
 
Last edited:
You're probably not familiar with any of my involvement in ufology, so you wouldn't know that I'm pretty well informed on the subject. I can't comment on the absolute certainty of any specific case, but based on the preponderance of evidence and my own experience, I believe alien visitation is a reality.

That sounds interesting :)

the idea of clinical death. In looking into that claim I found that clinical death is not the same as brain death, and that the criteria for it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction significantly. My life-partner's sister was declared dead and woke up in a body bag in the morgue.

Additionally, even brain death as determined by EEG can only detect surface level activity, and it's rarely performed because it's traditionally been expensive and time consuming. But the most iron clad reasoning is that NDEs are recalled from memory. So unless you don't think memory is a result of brain function, then logically the experiencer's brain had to be working well enough to record the memory onto its neurons.

I'm glad we're on the same page that evidence has to be primary. But regardless of the exact definition of 'death' between jurisdictions, would you not agree that in the overwhelming majority of cases, a patient declared "dead" would not be in a mental state to be able to "see" what the medical staff were doing / i.e. giving a visual description, typically from an out of body, floating above the scene perspective.

As far as I can tell, there are only a few possible reasons for this:
(1) the reports from patients describing this are false / falsified,
or
(2) consciousness can exist beyond the brain
or
(3) some entity could be giving this info to the patient telepathically
 
Last edited:
Option 3 might seem far out there, but reportedly there were entities helping the psychic spies with remote viewing
 
Option 1 seems least likely imo, because there's also shared death experiences, remote viewing, precognition and telepathy experiments, and out of body experience data to take into consideration

...and even the professional materialist Richard Wiseman admitted on skeptiko that Rupert Sheldrake's canine telepathy experiment was correct; but he justified his rejection of the significance of the results with the unscientific maxim: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
 
Last edited:
The topic of consciousness went on for thousands of posts on another forum where I became very well informed on it. The idea that consciousness is fundamental is a slippery slope into the same existential problems as everything else. We can certainly delve a little into that if you want, but it can get quite involved, so this post isn't the place to lay that all out.

Materialism emphasizes the object. Idealism emphasizes the subject. These are two poles. A pole cannot be fundamental because it doesn't include its opposite.

When we say x,y, or z is "fundamental" we are playing a word game where we're picking a word with the fewest number of definitional links to every other word.

A superior fundamental "ism" is what I call "Patternism". A Pattern is an exploration of similarities and differences but with a boundary that defines what is similar enough to be consider the "same" and different enough in some way as to be considered a separate instantiation of the "same".

So pattern consists of similarity, difference, and boundary. The similarity and difference are objective. The boundary around what is similar enough to be included in the set and different enough to be excluded is a choice.

The choice is random unless driven by a goal. A goal implies there is a usefulness to the choice of boundaries assigned. Look around the room and what do you see? Table and chairs or firewood? Mug for coffee or athletic supporter? Boundary assignment around a set is a matter of intended use.

So... All is Pattern. Pattern requires objective similarity/difference and subjective choice about defining boundaries. Both work together to define structure. Structure limits and frustrates which drives goals and new types of choices become available in a perpetual nested loop.

Pattern is a better choice for "the fundamental reality" because it sounds objective which the materialists will appreciate, but also requires subjective choice which the Idealists will appreciate and so it includes both poles. It acknowledges the fundamental reality is an interaction between subject and object and not one or the other. It also explains the fundamental inability to remove frustration from existence. It requires that truth be associated with a particular use. It expands on "as above so below" in explaining how everything exists as a set of nested entities attempting to achieve goals leaving behind structure which enables other entities to have new opportunities to achieve goals.
 
A superior fundamental "ism" is what I call "Patternism". A Pattern is an exploration of similarities and differences but with a boundary that defines what is similar enough to be consider the "same" and different enough in some way as to be considered a separate instantiation of the "same".

So pattern consists of similarity, difference, and boundary. The similarity and difference are objective. The boundary around what is similar enough to be included in the set and different enough to be excluded is a choice.

Interesting. If I understand you, I see in what you're saying with the inclusion of the opposites something that is also the dilemma in Indian philosophy: between dvaita (dualism) and advaita (non-dualism)... or the alternative, which I think describes reality more accurately: vishishtadvaita (qualified non-dualism)

Btw, would you say pattern is fundamental?
 
Interesting. If I understand you, I see in what you're saying with the inclusion of the opposites something that is also the dilemma in Indian philosophy: between dvaita (dualism) and advaita (non-dualism)... or the alternative, which I think describes reality more accurately: vishishtadvaita (qualified non-dualism)

Btw, would you say pattern is fundamental?

Yes, I would say it is fundamental with the caveat that we remember we are playing a word game. You could say I'm proposing that the word "Pattern" has on average the fewest degrees of separation from every other word. If you choose "consciousness" as your fundamental word you're left struggling to stretch its definition to apply to fundamental particles and if you choose "material" as your fundamental word you're left struggling to include qualia. Pattern is the meta pattern which directly connects both.

I have to include this caveat that this is a word game because the word "Pattern" is a noun and this "objectifies" it and we must remember that Pattern is a structure generating process or an interaction between three things: thing 1, thing 2, and the boundary that defines them and the boundary is subjective. Pattern always implies this Trinity.

Non-Duality or Oneness is slippery thing. It is a fundamental paradox. One implies none and from 1 and 0 you can get everything else. To determine if two points are coincident or separate requires a 3rd point of view of the observer. To say "All is One" you are dissolving all boundaries and this is a kind of death or destruction. It is the end of thought. You cannot talk or perceive or act without fracturing this Oneness. So the Oneness is something like a singularity... we can orbit around it with our poetic words and metaphors and we can see it's effects but we can't see it directly without obliteration.

Monism is preferred by most because if there were two totally separate things they either A) interact forming a system which could be altogether labeled as one thing or they B) do not interact in which case we might as well ignore that the other thing exists. So we can assume there is only One thing. Then we label the One thing but labeling it requires we define the label and then define the definition and definition of definition, etc... fracturing the One Thing in infinite regress.

Even though trying to label the paradoxical One Thing is a fool's errand, what we label the One thing still matters because how we choose to label it is how we choose to apply mental distance or emphasis/deemphasis to other concepts. So we apply different weights to our perception based on the label we apply to the One Thing.

The description of Pattern is sort of the "game of life" fundamental rule of rules with self-similarity up and down the nested levels of existence.

You could also say reality is composed of Mechanisms and the boundary between the Mechanisms which is Choice. To be observed by science something must reliably repeat. Mechanisms reliably repeat. So through the lens of science, everything is a mechanism. But there is always ambiguity at the edges of the mechanism at the boundary and it is upon this ambiguous uncertain boundary that choice enters.

Now with all this in mind, go watch the Matrix Architect scene about a dozen times on repeat. :)

 
Last edited:
Even so, your quip was getting to an important point, that legitimate evidence has to take priority, and afterwards logic... rather than discarding legitimate evidence and then using logic.

So the evidence is primary.

As far as I can tell, the "consciousness does not exist beyond the brain" worldview cannot give credence to outer body experiences, psychic spying, shared death experiences, accurate reporting by the patient of what happened in the emergency room during clinical death... Otherwise the logical / rational explanation is that consciousness DOES exist beyond the brain
This is right in line with why I'm pressing on Randall about the parsing of the what qualifies as evidence.
While I believe the NDE experience to be directly correlated with another realm, I hold firm the possibility that:
  • The NDE experience is occurring at the other realm.
  • Then once the NDE'er revives, the other realm transmits the legit-non-physical data to this realm legit-non-physically.
  • If so, the human experience of the NDE all occur locally/physically "in the mind" per Randall's argument.
Again, I lean more toward the idea that our higher selves are here within us locally, but I see it as fully possible that instead they are fully remote. The remote model could also serve the scriptural idea that a creator successfully built this realm with no evidentiary connection to any outside realm.
 
Back
Top