Jump to content

BigQuestioner

Members
  • Content Count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About BigQuestioner

  • Rank
    Lepton

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The statements you quote were in intended as a replay to pzkpfw. Don't know how things got messed up. Sorry.
  2. Okay, let's say its a false, or faulty, analogy, which it is for the reason given.
  3. Funny how you don't acknowledge that your analogy was flawed, and don't want to address the specifics of my explanation regarding the need for viewing the NEC (and natural afterlife) from the proper frame of reference. Makes me think 1) why did I even bother to try to explain and 2) you don't really want to understand the NEC Theory (perhaps because if you did, you might have to deal with it). This ends my dialog with you.
  4. First of all, your Plasma TV analogy is flawed, as are those I've previously addressed elsewhere (with a projector and a computer). The flaw is that your TV has zero consciousness, i.e., it does not perceive nor has any awareness of its last image. Second, the problem you are having in grasping the natural afterlife, as do many, is that you are viewing the situation purely from a material perspective, i.e., from the frame of reference of the living. You must view it only from the frame of reference of the dying. That is, you must remain in the mind of the dying person. From this perspective, what you see, know, and feel only comes from what you can perceive. (This is not true for a TV.) Moreover, you know of nothing from that which you cannot perceive, i.e., death. You may think you're in heaven, because of a dream or NDE, and nothing will ever happen thereafter, because of your transition into and actual death (i.e. subsequent timelessness), to make you ever think otherwise. Get it? It's really not rocket science. Third, on this forum I would like to discuss the impact of the natural afterlife on religion, so for the benefit of you and others, I repeat what I stated above to swansont:
  5. The NEC theory and natural afterlife have nothing to do with what I want. They have to do with what is.
  6. Perception is what we perceive as reality. Our emotions are real, and those that are present in our last conscious moment--which will be aroused by our last perceived experience, real or not--is what we will be left with for an eternity.
  7. Okay, I get it now. Since I can't see how to edit my post, I will add a short overview of the natural afterlife. Overview of the Natural Afterlife Below I give a short explanation of the natural afterlife, here assumed a heavenly one, at two levels of detail. You will find much more detail in the referenced article. General. Because of a near-death dream and near-death experience (NDE), you believe you’ve die and gone to heaven. Then you actually do die. Assuming no supernatural consciousness of any sort emerges after death, for all eternity you never know that you are not in heaven, i.e., you will always “believe” (timelessly so) that you’re in heaven. More Detailed. Below is a quote from the referenced article [with my insertions added within brackets]: The natural afterlife is actually an illusion, which can only be experienced at death since it is the only time in life in which a conscious moment is not followed by another. Though only an illusion, the natural afterlife seems real to the dying person and, in fact, the emotions evoked by the illusion are real as are the emotions we experience when waking up from a frightening dream. Below is another quote from the referenced article that gives an inkling into this illusion and indicates that the natural afterlife phenomenon
  8. Yes, it [the NEC] "is a mental construct," and as such it is supported by psychological principles--i.e., more specifically, cognitive science. Do not my statements and the "what do you think?" questions I pose in the last paragraph make clear what I want to discuss? That is, on this forum I really want to discuss the compatibility of the natural afterlife, as described in the referenced article, to religion and, in this regard, how one's religious beliefs (or nonbeliefs) might effect their thinking concerning what (or who) determines the content of the NEC and natural afterlife. Btw, on this forum I do not wish to debate the reality of the NEC or natural afterlife. This I have done often enough over the past three years in person, by email, and on psychology and philosophy forums. Moreover, with the publication of the referenced journal article, hundreds of psychology and philosophy scholars have now reviewed it and have yet to find any legitimate flaws in the NEC theory, i.e., its logical deduction or the psychological principles upon which the deduction is based, or for that matter in the testing scenario that is presented. Do I need to edit my post (can I?) to be more clear on what I want to discuss? This is my first post on this forum.
  9. I recently had an article published in the Journal of Mind and Behavior. It reveals, describes, and establishes that a natural, i.e., scientifically supported, heaven (and hell) actually exists. “Yeah, sure.” you may be thinking. But to check it out for yourself, just click on the article’s title given below. Be forewarned, however, the heaven that the article describes is likely not all of what you may have been envisioning. Though it can be an eternity of optimal real love and happiness in the presence of God, it’s spiritual, meaning you’re not there in body, and its timeless, meaning no events occur. Also, it’s psychological, meaning “it’s all in your mind.” As such, in Christian terms, it lends even more credence to Luke 17: 21, “… the Kingdom of God is within you.” A postprint copy of the article, “The Theory of a Natural Eternal Consciousness: The Psychological Basis for a Natural Afterlife,” is posted on ResearchGate. (Note that you can skip through some of the more technical parts of the article if you wish. I believe that, with an open mind, the natural afterlife can be viewed as compatible with most religions. But what do you think? I also believe that it forces everyone to answer the question: “What do I believe determines the content of my last experience and conscious moment in life: me, random chance, the causality of nature, or a God? Again, what do you think?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.