Idealist View of Consciousness After Death - Kastrup

[Xepera-maSet]

"To  make  educated  guesses  about  what  happens  to  consciousness  upon  bodily death,  one  has  to  have  some  understanding  of  the  relationship  between  body  and consciousness  during  life.  This  relationship,  of  course,  reflects  an  ontology.  In this  brief  essay,  the  tenability  of  both  the  physicalist  and  dualist  ontologies  will be  assessed  in  view  of  recent  experimental  results  in  physics.  The  alternative ontology  of  idealism  will  then  be  discussed,  which  not  only  can  be  reconciled with  the  available  empirical  evidence,  but  also  overcomes  the  lack  of  parsimony and  limited  explanatory  power  of  physicalism  and  dualism.  Idealism  elegantly explains  the  basic  facts  of  reality,  such  as  (a)  the  fact  that  brain  activity correlates  with  experience,  (b)  the  fact  that  we  all  seem  to  share  the  same  world, and  (c)  the  fact  that  we  can’t  change  the  laws  of  nature  at  will.  If  idealism  is correct,  the  implication  is  that,  instead  of  disappearing,  conscious  inner  life expands  upon  bodily  death,  a  prediction  that  finds  circumstantial  but  significant confirmation  in  reports  of  near-death  experiences  and  psychedelic  trances,  both of  which  can  be  construed  as  glimpses  into  the  early  stages  of  the  death  process."


[PDF]
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://philarchive.org/archive/KASTIV&ved=2ahUKEwicyO3j8dHkAhUIv54KHV1GCqwQFjAAegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw38j_vGWJFjdrAvSlbpbl1b

[Onyx]

Dr. Aquino discusses immortality in MindStar (starting p.141).

Edit: why do so many religions focus so much on life after death? Is this a consequence of survival instincts, or something more?

[Hapu]

Edit: why do so many religions focus so much on life after death? Is this a consequence of survival instincts, or something more?

One view:
For the buyers it's survival instinct. For the sellers it's marketing. Sell a product for which manufacturing costs are zero, shipping costs are zero, and warehousing costs are zero. The sellers are cynical swindlers. The buyers are dupes.

But on a deeper level, something additional is going on. The foregoing is definitely true, don't get me wrong. But it's not the whole truth. Something is calling. We don't know what, or how, or why, or where, or even when. Most of us who aren't brainwashed are fully aware that the call resonates either from no holy book or else from all of them. Either way, it makes holy books moot, since the most they could possibly contain that isn't bullshit is the suggestion that something is calling. We can take that single insight from all of them and then set them all aside.

As for idealism - it requires at least one ideator that has existed from the beginning. To choose between materialistic monism and idealistic monism is to choose between atheism and theism.

[W_Adam_Smythe]

On one hand I think that we must define who and what we are. In other words, if all that we are is our physical bodies, when all of our organs systematically stop working then that is it, we are no more, we are dead.

However, on the other hand, we are not merely body parts and organs. There is something there that uses these tools.

Sure we have memories to base things on. However, are we our memories?

So far, what I have come to understand, and I could be wrong, but we are what some would call a mind, others would call consciousness and others would call a soul. This is something that we know is there, but that we cannot physically describe in the same way we would one of our organs or body parts.

Can we continue on?

Sure we can live on in the memories of other physically people. Enough so that we may possess their thoughts and actions from time to time. Look at how living people will often base decisions on the memory of a "dead" friend or relative.

In this respect, it would seem that we then would need a living host to feed off of. Likewise, when you examine the parallels of mummification and cryonics with regards to the preservation of the physical anchor you can see the slightest hint of it being preserved for "something" or someone to come back to.

Where I become most curious is with regards to AI. There was an excellent essay in Apocalypse Culture II called Total Body Transplants by John Mckenzie. It dealt with the topic of at what point would you become so artificial that you would no longer be you? However, to a degree even this is outdated.

There are now programs out there where based on memory you can create a deceased friend or relative online.

What if this thing called the mind, soul or consciousness could, for lack of better term be put into cyberspace and have the full capability of continuing to take what we left with and continue to expand in terms of memory, experience etc? While some may fear AI to be the beginning of man becoming obsolete could it also not be seen as a gateway to immortality in a way we never before imagined?

[Hapu]

On one hand I think that we must define who and what we are. In other words, if all that we are is our physical bodies, when all of our organs systematically stop working then that is it, we are no more, we are dead.

True.

However, on the other hand, we are not merely body parts and organs. There is something there that uses thee tools.

True - and the brain is included among the body parts and organs.

Sure we have memories to base things on. However, are we our memories?

No. But my memories are a crucial part of what makes my body/mind unique from other bodies/minds.

So far, what I have come to understand, and I could be wrong, but we are what some would call a mind, others would call consciousness and others would call a soul. This is something that we know is there, but that we cannot physically describe in the same way we would one of our organs or body parts.

On other threads I've given my answer to what I think I am: physical body, mental body, causal body, and focus of awareness. During waking life, my focus of awareness is rooted in my physical body. During deep dreaming and after death, my focus of awareness is rooted in my causal body. When the focus of awareness takes root, a mental body sprouts.

This is what Carlos Castaneda called a Sorcerer's Lie. It provides a coherent framework for a philosophy of greater workings and peace with death but can't be proven.
 

Sure we can live on in the memories of other physical people. Enough so that we may possess their thoughts and actions from time to time. Look at how living people will often base decisions on the memory of a "dead" friend or relative.

For me this isn't the least bit satisfying.

In this respect, it would seem that we then would need a living host to feed off of. Likewise, when you examine the parallels of mummification and cryonics with regards to the preservation of the physical anchor you can see the slightest hint of it being preserved for "something" or someone to come back to.

Never made any sense to me. The body dies and decomposes. It's obviously meant to be discarded.

Where I become most curious is with regards to AI. There was an excellent essay in Apocalypse Culture II called Total Body Transplants by John Mckenzie. It dealt with the topic of at what point would you become so artificial that you would no longer be you? However, to a degree even this is outdated.

It remains to be seen if a focus of awareness can take root in electronics.

There are now programs out there where based on memory you can create a deceased friend or relative online.

Probably comforting for some people but not real.

What if this thing called the mind, soul or consciousness could, for lack of better term be put into cyberspace and have the full capability of continuing to take what we left with and continue to expand in terms of memory, experience etc? While some may fear AI to be the beginning of man becoming obsolete could it also not be seen as a gateway to immortality in a way we never before imagined?

Only if the focus of awareness can take root in electronics, which remains to be seen.

[W_Adam_Smythe]

No. But my memories are a crucial part of what makes my body/mind unique from other bodies/minds.

Indeed correct. Your memories are the experiences that help to shape your thoughts, opinions, and actions. Yet, you are none of these things either.

On other threads I've given my answer to what I think I am: physical body, mental body, causal body, and focus of awareness. During waking life, my focus of awareness is rooted in my physical body. During deep dreaming and after death, my focus of awareness is rooted in my causal body. When the focus of awareness takes root, a mental body sprouts.

This is what Carlos Castaneda called a Sorcerer's Lie. It provides a coherent framework for a philosophy of greater workings and peace with death but can't be proven.
 

Interesting.

A great essay on determining who and what you are can be found in an essay by George C. Smith  I° November 8, XXI in The Ruby Tablet of Set, called "The Deidentification Process and Personal Power"

The gist of this and what is truly needed to be grasped to be understood is that you are the experiencer but you are not the experience.

In this respect, it would seem that we then would need a living host to feed off of. Likewise, when you examine the parallels of mummification and cryonics with regards to the preservation of the physical anchor you can see the slightest hint of it being preserved for "something" or someone to come back to.

Never made any sense to me. The body dies and decomposes. It's obviously meant to be discarded.

Have you done any research on cryonics? Likewise were it true that "the body dies and decomposes" therefor it is "meant to be discarded" no, liver kidney or heart transplants would ever take place, and were they attempted they wouldn't be of any success because of what they were "meant to be"

It remains to be seen if a focus of awareness can take root in electronics.

True. However, wouldn't it be exciting if it could?

There are now programs out there where based on memory you can create a deceased friend or relative online.

Probably comforting for some people but not real.

Please do read the essay by George C. Smith that I spoke of in The Ruby Tablet of Set earlier.

I happen to agree with the position that all experience is real. The thing that must be understood is that you are not the experience but that every experience is indeed real. 

On a very simplistic level, let's say that you believed that your house was being robbed. The robber was in the house and this would be a kill or be killed situation. Perhaps a noise triggered this response of you. Your heart is thumping and you are terrified.

You then find out that the noise was only something being knocked over by a cat.

You breathe a sigh of relief, now knowing that what you believed was not true. However, do you still deny the very real experience of fear that you just felt?

The same of a nightmare. You wake up and tell yourself the standard lull "it was just a dream".

However, is it not true that you did indeed experience the dream?

What becomes painstakingly clear is that there is no such thing as "unreal". Unreal means that something doesn't exist. If something didn't exist you wouldn't know about it.

Again, for much more detail on this topic I cannot recommend George Smith's essay in The Ruby Tablet of Set enough.

What if this thing called the mind, soul or consciousness could, for lack of better term be put into cyberspace and have the full capability of continuing to take what we left with and continue to expand in terms of memory, experience etc? While some may fear AI to be the beginning of man becoming obsolete could it also not be seen as a gateway to immortality in a way we never before imagined?

Only if the focus of awareness can take root in electronics, which remains to be seen.

[/quote]

Indeed we shall see.

[Hapu]

Am reading this in depth right now:
An Ontological Solution to the Mind-Body Problem - by Bernardo Kastrup
https://www.mdpi.com/2409-9287/2/2/10/htm

The best argument for idealism I've ever encountered. It's becoming a primary speculation for me.

Angular magicians will incidentally enjoy the four, the five, and the six.

I see this article was discussed in TIS #3. Reading that now.

Hmm. The main point of the TIS article is that Kastrup's argument could be adapted to support dualism instead of idealism. I think I'll try that.

[Hapu]

Kastrup's argument adapted to support dualism:

Facts 1, 2, 3, and 4 do not disprove dualism. Fact 1 puts pressure on dualism but only if dualism is narrowly understood. If we broaden our understanding, we see that a tight correlation between body and mind could be causally linked to a third thing, such as the Tao, or could be causally linked such that body causes mind phenomena, or such that mind causes body phenomena, or such that each causes phenomena in the other. However, the dualism proposition seems not to be parsimonious, since it entails two or even three things. A failure of explanatory power has never been dualism's problem. Dualism's problem has always been a failure of parsimony.

Facts 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 do not disprove or even put pressure on dualism. But the parsimony problem persists. Monism is the most parsimonious model if it stands up to scrutiny.

The competing monisms are physicalism and idealism. Physicalism is ridiculous since my perceptions, thoughts, and emotions are obviously not physical. They tightly correlate with brain states, which are physical, but tight correlation is not identity. Idealism seems equally ridiculous, since pebbles, raindrops, and splinters are obviously not perceptions, thoughts, or emotions as we understand them. Kastrup argues that pebbles, raindrops, and splinters are thoughts of Universal Mind (he doesn't call it Universal Mind). But the only reason for accepting this proposition is that it supports a parsimonious model; I.e., there is only Universal Mind having experiences. But is it parsimonious to ask us to accept that pebbles, raindrops, and splinters are the thoughts of Universal Mind?

For the sake of parsimony, then, Kastrup posits his Inferences.
#1 - Experiencer and experience are of the same essential nature. Let experiencer be mind as we know it and this works fine from a dualistic perspective. Mind is the water and experience is the ripples in the water.
#2 - Experiencer is an ontological primitive. Let experiencer be mind as we know it and this works fine from a dualistic perspective. 
#3 - Experiencer is associated with the entire universe. Kastrup explains this by arguing that every mind as we know it is an alter of Universal Mind. This works fine form a dualistic perspective.
#4 - Living organisms are alters of Universal Mind. All living organisms. OK. This works fine from a dualistic perspective.
#5 - Metabolizing organisms are the extrinsic appearance of the alters of Universal Mind. Here we've moved beyond dualism. But we only did it because Kastrup's monism demands it, and we're only entertaining Kastrup's monism because of its alleged parsimony. Dualism doesn't require Inference #5 to be true, and that in itself is a kind of parsimony.

#6 - The perceptions of an alter are responsive to the thoughts (and only the thoughts) of the prime manifestation of Universal Mind. We're beyond dualism here, but we're only entertaining Kastrup's monism because of its parsimony. Dualism doesn't require Inference #6 to be true, and that in itself is a kind of parsimony.

In the end, I must ask myself the question of whether Kastrup's monism is more or less parimonious than dualism. Whatever I decide, this article has caused me to think this thought: "If we broaden our understanding, we see that a tight correlation between body and mind could be causally linked to a third thing, such as the Tao, or could be causally linked such that body causes mind phenomena, or such that mind causes body phenomena, or such that each causes phenomena in the other."

What if I were to throw parsimony to the wolves? I would then choose the model I find most intriguing, which is a triplistic one. I am three bodies: physical body, mental body, and what I'll now call Tao-body. But I got a new thought from Kastrup. What if the physical and mental bodies are tightly correlated because they're both causally linked to the Tao-body? What if Tao-bodies are the prime movers and the other two bodies are secondary and contingent?