Dr. Rob Williams and Brandon Zollino, Freedom and Unity |557|

I'm not sure we can say that the life review process of an nde is a feedback loop in such a literal/ materialistic way.

Well true, the life review feedback loop is obviously a step or two in complexity above the PID loop in the cruise control on your vehicle, but feedback loops are an essential element of consciousness and stacking feedback loops is an element of "advanced consciousness", and if we view the life review as a feedback loop then that implies the soul that spawned the life is trying to get better at something and the only way to get better at something is with feedback before trying again.

And it explains why there is such a variety of contradictory information coming back from it... not everyone was spawned from the same soul with the same goals. Maybe at some higher higher higher level we are all one with the One who is one, but as that filters down through the layers it becomes varied.

And it also fits nicely with the concepts I grew up with of "sin" and "the refiner's fire"... the idea that we are striving to hit the mark but we fall short (sin - as in an arrow falling short of the target) in various ways. The idea that we are being tried, tested, refined and this only comes about through challenge and through cutting off that which fails and promoting that which succeeds.

again, I appreciate the caution that gregory shushan shows when pressed on the moral imperative question. I think we have to acknowledge not only that we don't know, but that there's a hell of a lot of contradictory information coming back.

And this isn't even incorporating in nelson's skepticism regarding the contamination of experiences and these extended realms :)

Like I said: you're judged in your life review by your soul's goals which aren't necessarily the same for all souls. And then presumably the souls are judged by a higher set of goals... until somewhere up there we get to the ultimate moral imperative.
 
I don’t know who Rob and Trish are and am not familiar with any of their books so my impression of them is based solely on this interview. It amazes me how they are so blinded by the beliefs they hold and trust for the narrative on health and global warming / climate change etc. as Rob even stated. Yet in other categories they seem to question these same sources of information with very little trust. I feel frustration with them and others like them. I also felt satisfaction and perhaps even glee with what I perceived as Alex basically making a fool of Rob about pizza gate. For me, when someone like Rob is shown to not even know what he is talking about and as a defense jump around changing the subject this is revealing of his overall thought processes. His credibility has just been lowered in general in my view on all subjects. I now have less confidence in anything he speaks of. Yet I have to question my own feelings on this. Why do I get so frustrated with those who can’t see what I see ? And why do I enjoy them being shut down by someone like Alex ? Does this make sense ? Does this help me or anyone else? I mean I actually enjoy the aspect of what I saw as Rob being made to look like an idiot. I think this enjoyment and frustration would be felt in a very similar way from someone who shared Rob ant Trish’s views and heard another argument only where their side was more the victor. In fact, perhaps the very same interview would have been perceived in this way by some of those who share the views of Rob and Trish with Alex being made the fool of by Rob and Trish’s obvious truths as they see it, Polar bears and the rest of it. I wonder if Rob and Trish even thought they were not victorious in this exchange. It is amazing how attached we become to our views. This is why Alex’s maximum of Skeptico - inquiry to perpetuate doubt seems a way to sort through this and ascertain some logical idea of what truth is in a given circumstance. Yet there is also a problem here I feel. Although I value this proposition I also know from my own life that this doubting of everything can be a hinderance in many aspects of life as it certainly has been for me. It can be used in a way to never commit to anything, never dive in with fullness. if you always keep a shred of doubt and question every aspect of everything how do you ever really commit to anything ? Maybe the problem here has something do with this being all mind, all intellectual, the inquiry, the doubt, this chatter I am writing , all of it. It’s like underneath it there is an assumption that the thinking mind is the ultimate tool or measure of reality. Something like that -I’m not sure what I’m getting at here. lol
 
I don’t know who Rob and Trish are and am not familiar with any of their books so my impression of them is based solely on this interview. It amazes me how they are so blinded by the beliefs they hold and trust for the narrative on health and global warming / climate change etc. as Rob even stated. Yet in other categories they seem to question these same sources of information with very little trust. I feel frustration with them and others like them. I also felt satisfaction and perhaps even glee with what I perceived as Alex basically making a fool of Rob about pizza gate. For me, when someone like Rob is shown to not even know what he is talking about and as a defense jump around changing the subject this is revealing of his overall thought processes. His credibility has just been lowered in general in my view on all subjects. I now have less confidence in anything he speaks of. Yet I have to question my own feelings on this. Why do I get so frustrated with those who can’t see what I see ? And why do I enjoy them being shut down by someone like Alex ? Does this make sense ? Does this help me or anyone else? I mean I actually enjoy the aspect of what I saw as Rob being made to look like an idiot. I think this enjoyment and frustration would be felt in a very similar way from someone who shared Rob ant Trish’s views and heard another argument only where their side was more the victor. In fact, perhaps the very same interview would have been perceived in this way by some of those who share the views of Rob and Trish with Alex being made the fool of by Rob and Trish’s obvious truths as they see it, Polar bears and the rest of it. I wonder if Rob and Trish even thought they were not victorious in this exchange. It is amazing how attached we become to our views. This is why Alex’s maximum of Skeptico - inquiry to perpetuate doubt seems a way to sort through this and ascertain some logical idea of what truth is in a given circumstance. Yet there is also a problem here I feel. Although I value this proposition I also know from my own life that this doubting of everything can be a hinderance in many aspects of life as it certainly has been for me. It can be used in a way to never commit to anything, never dive in with fullness. if you always keep a shred of doubt and question every aspect of everything how do you ever really commit to anything ? Maybe the problem here has something do with this being all mind, all intellectual, the inquiry, the doubt, this chatter I am writing , all of it. It’s like underneath it there is an assumption that the thinking mind is the ultimate tool or measure of reality. Something like that -I’m not sure what I’m getting at here. lol

If there was no reward feedback for winning an argument, then no one would try to win an argument and then the process of building a consensus reality model of the world would cease and then the monsters in reality would once again be occluded in ignorance and society would weaken until we were conquered by either the hidden monsters or another more argumentative society.
 
If there was no reward feedback for winning an argument, then no one would try to win an argument and then the process of building a consensus reality model of the world would cease and then the monsters in reality would once again be occluded in ignorance and society would weaken until we were conquered by either the hidden monsters or another more argumentative society.
I guess this begs the question, why then are so many fixated on winning rather than simply illuminating the truth? I ask this because as a truthseeker, I could care less about "winning". Nevertheless I've been accused of persisting in an argument because I want to win, as if I argue for some kind of ego boost, or the gratification of being seen as some kind of intellectual superior — when that has nothing to do with it.

It seems to me that those sorts of assumptions are nothing more than personality attacks by those who are projecting their own anxieties about losing. To me, when an argument becomes about winning or losing instead of illuminating the truth, it becomes a lost cause.
 
Last edited:
I guess this begs the question, why then are so many fixated on winning rather than simply illuminating the truth? I ask this because as a truthseeker, I could care less about "winning". Nevertheless I've been accused of persisting in an argument because I want to win, as if I argue for some kind of ego boost, or the gratification of being seen as some kind of intellectual superior — when that has nothing to do with it.

It seems to me that those sorts of assumptions are nothing more than personality attacks by those who are projecting their own anxieties about losing. To me, when an argument becomes about winning or losing instead of illuminating the truth, it becomes a lost cause.

I think why people might have accused you of that is because SO FEW people are of the mindset to just follow the evidence wherever it leads... There are so many pseudo sceptics out there who disingenuously say that they'd love to be proven wrong, but it's obvious from their actions that they're not looking for the truth. Michael Shermer and Richard Dawkins, classic examples.

When I first read your posts, I did wonder whether you were just trolling or not, but then I saw there was a genuine back and forth based on evidence. It was refreshing
 
great stuff! thx.

I now have less confidence in anything he speaks of.
Agreed. I'm always amazed when people don't follow this line of reasoning. like, " yeah I get that rob show that he has no idea about the facts surrounding pizzagate, but didn't he have a point about the underground tunnel?" I mean, that's a discussion we'd have to have with someone who knows what they're talkin about regarding the topic. rob already gave up his seat at the table.

Yet I have to question my own feelings on this. Why do I get so frustrated with those who can’t see what I see ? And why do I enjoy them being shut down by someone like Alex ? Does this make sense ?


it makes a heck of a lot of sense to me. it's something I've thought a lot about... and hopefully you can see my evolution during my stint doing the show.

For me, the answer gets really spiritual really quick... who am I? why am I here? who is the doer? love everyone AND tell the truth?

Does this help me or anyone else?

I think the truth is always worth it in these situations. I also think that anything less can be condescending and can take me in the opposite direction I'm where I want to go. I have to respect rob and trish enough to believe that they can handle data/logic/reason/truth.


inquiry to perpetuate doubt seems a way to sort through this and ascertain some logical idea of what truth is in a given circumstance. Yet there is also a problem here I feel. Although I value this proposition I also know from my own life that this doubting of everything can be a hinderance in many aspects of life as it certainly has been for me.


I hear you... at least to a certain extent... but I also think this kind of gets overblown. I mean, were all deciding (venturing out of the doubt) all the time. one of my favorite quotes:

There's only one philosophical question, suicide :)

Very stark... but cuts through a lot of bullshit. I'm deciding. I'm standing in the light
 
I think why people might have accused you of that is because SO FEW people are of the mindset to just follow the evidence wherever it leads... There are so many pseudo sceptics out there who disingenuously say that they'd love to be proven wrong, but it's obvious from their actions that they're not looking for the truth. Michael Shermer and Richard Dawkins, classic examples.

When I first read your posts, I did wonder whether you were just trolling or not, but then I saw there was a genuine back and forth based on evidence. It was refreshing
Thanks. I'm glad I'm earning your respect. I get a similar impression from your posts as well. However, I would add that when Shermer and Dawkins make valid points, they should be granted the weight they deserve, despite their other shortcomings. This can be really hard for some people, but I always try not to make the issues into an "us vs them" thing — even though there are people on both sides who do.

That's probably why I find myself getting attacked by both sides more often than gaining favor with either one. It's a fairly unenviable position, but the truth isn't about winning a popularity contest.
 
Last edited:
Thanks. I'm glad I'm earning your respect. I get a similar impression from your posts as well. However, I would add that when Shermer and Dawkins make valid points, they should be granted the weight they deserve, despite their other shortcomings. This can be really hard for some people, but I always try not to make the issues into an "us vs them" thing — even though there are people on both sides who do. That's probably why I find myself getting attacked by both sides more often than gaining favor with either one.

Lol. I hear you. Well I did write here in the last few days that I found some aspects of Dawkins' Selfish Gene book brilliant. But as Sheldrake said, on questions of phenomena such as telepathy he's disingenuous
 
Lol. I hear you. Well I did write here in the last few days that I found some aspects of Dawkins' Selfish Gene book brilliant. But as Sheldrake said, on questions of phenomena such as telepathy he's disingenuous
Sheldrake has issues. So does Dawkins. So I can understand why they'd be critical of each other. At the same time, I think we need both ends of the spectrum to be active in order to explore the fullness of the issues. If everyone always agreed on everything, I think we'd be less likely to learn new things or recognize our mistakes.

 
Sheldrake has issues. So does Dawkins. So I can understand why they'd be critical of each other. At the same time, I think we need both ends of the spectrum to be active in order to explore the fullness of the issues. If everyone always agreed on everything, I think we'd be less likely to learn new things or recognize our mistakes.


Yes, but what Sheldrake reports of Dawkins is that he doesn't want to engage with the evidence.
 
Yes, but what Sheldrake reports of Dawkins is that he doesn't want to engage with the evidence.
It might be the case that the evidence that Sheldrake's well known for isn't applicable to the argument that Dawkins was making. Perhaps Dawkins recognized that, in which case, the logical thing to do is not engage with that evidence ( in that context ). I run into these walls regularly with the question of afterlives. I seem to recall someone here saying at one point that they simply "weren't convinced" by the reasoning — probably well knowing that being convinced is entirely separate from whether or not the reasoning is comprehended.
 
Last edited:
It might be the case that the evidence that Sheldrake's well known for isn't applicable to the argument that Dawkins was making. Perhaps Dawkins recognized that, in which case, the logical thing to do is not engage with that evidence ( in that context ). I run into these walls regularly with the question of afterlives. I seem to recall someone here saying at one point that they simply "weren't convinced" by the reasoning — probably well knowing that being convinced is entirely separate from whether or not the reasoning is comprehended.

Dawkins was reportedly calling Sheldrake's claims nonsense. If what Sheldrake says is correct about the aborted interview, Dawkins should have engaged with the evidence. But instead, Dawkins' aim is obviously to create propaganda....

Just as you seem to be engaged in too, Randall, judging by your post in the other thread: 'you don't believe the polar bears either!'

At least if you're going to troll, to waste people's time, do so in a way that isn't so obvious
 
Last edited:
Dawkins was reportedly calling Sheldrake's claims nonsense. If what Sheldrake says is correct about the aborted interview, Dawkins should have engaged with the evidence. But instead, Dawkins' aim is obviously to create propaganda....
I'm not as confident as you seem to be about assuming the intent of people. I prefer to ask them in-person and explore the issues in greater depth before judging them or their reasoning.
Just as you seem to be engaged in too, Randall, judging by your post in the other thread: 'you don't believe the polar bears either!'
At least if you're going to troll, to waste people's time, do so in a way that isn't so obvious
There you go again making assumptions. This time I've been compared to Dawkins. That's a first ( lol ). BTW what you're calling "trolling" is what I call contributing content and discussion. If my content always has to agree with everyone else's here not to be considered trolling, what's the point of having any discussion at all?
 
Back
Top