If the title of this thread could be longer, it would read:
Earth Is Not the Center of the Universe and in One's Mind Death Does Not Result in NothingnessI would state it this way because I've found that my claim of a
natural (vs. supernatural) eternal consciousness and afterlife seems as hard for many people to accept--even as a possibility--as history shows was the claim that the earth was not the center of the universe. Both claims are "way outside the box" in terms of challenging what was or is current orthodoxy and quite significant in terms of philosophy and religion. In terms of overwhelming certainty, my claim doesn't come close to that of a non-pivotal earth. Can it be said, however, to be more than conjecture, even a scientific theory as I claim?
The short essay below gives an inkling as to how a
natural eternal consciousness (NEC) and
natural afterlife as phenomena are real by explaining their psychological basis. The article
The Theory of a Natural Eternal Consciousness: The Psychological Basis for a Natural Afterlife provides much more detail. It describes their elusive essence, presents a formal model to better define them, provides arguments for their validity, and briefly addresses their significance to philosophy and religion, admittedly controversial and likely enormous.
If you are willing to read the article carefully with an open mind, I and I'm sure others would greatly appreciate your views. A caution, however: Try to ensure 1) that your comments are not simply based on a belief in the absolute truth of Hypothesis 1, given below, and 2) that you are viewing death strictly from the perspective of the dying person--i.e., from only what they perceive, from only what is "in one's mind."
The Psychological Basis for the NEC and Natural Afterlife
From a general understanding of psychology, two opposing hypotheses can be deduced for what one will experience upon death. The first is based on the definitions of
mind and
consciousness like those given in many introductory psychology textbooks. The second delves just a bit deeper and is based on human experience and established cognitive principles in time and conscious perception.
Hypothesis 1: Quoting from a © 2014 psychology textbook by Zimbardo: “The
mind is the product of the brain,”
consciousness is “the brain process that creates our mental representation of the world and our current thoughts” and “as a process … is dynamic and continual rather than static.” Therefore, when the brain dies, the mind as its product and consciousness as a
brain process must totally cease to exist and one will “experience” a before-life kind of nothingness.
Hypothesis 2: Before death a still functioning brain produces a last discrete present conscious moment of a perceived event within some experience and then is forever incapable of producing another moment that would cognitively supplant the last present moment from one’s consciousness. Therefore, one is never aware that one’s last experience is over, and so a remnant of consciousness, an experience as captured by its last moment, will become imperceptibly timeless and deceptively eternal, i.e.,
static,
relative to one’s perspective. (Here
experience is not in quotes as it is indeed
experienced before death.)
Hypothesis 1, despite lacking empirical verification, has been accepted as orthodoxy by many. It can only be verified
after death, which is impossible. Hypothesis 2 on the other hand, hitherto likely overlooked by the orthodoxies of both 1 and religion, can be verified
before death. It is verified to some degree with each everyday human encounter with death-like timelessness, e.g., dreamless sleep or general anesthesia. Especially relevant are the timeless periods from which one awakes
instantly surprised when their first conscious moment is completely inconsistent with their last, e.g., as in waking up from an intense dream. One need only ask: “Suppose I never woke up?”