A Natural After-Life

As people like to post crackpot theories that are congenial to them, I thought I’d plop this down here.

I was thinking about how dreams can seem (from the point of view of the dreamer) to go on for very long periods of time, even if the dream, from the point of view of an external observer, might only last a couple of minutes. And I noted that it might be the case that as we lose executive function in geezerhood and become more and more a batch of autonomous, unconscious functions, our dream experiences get phenomenologically longer and longer. [If I knew something more about relativity theory maybe I could analogize this with the difference between falling into a black hole from the vantage of an outside observer and the vantage of the falling person, but alas….]

Anyhow, it seemed conceivable to me that one’s unconscious (where Freud said “time does not exist”) dream experiences might increasingly “stretch” until, at the moment of death, they becomes “endless” (or eternal or something like that).

If this were the case, everyone would have his or her own personal eternal afterlife, and the characteristics of each of these states would have the nice feature of being to some extent a function of how well we had “worked through” things in our lives. “Redemption” would kind of be in play, since, presumably, those who feel guilty about things they’ve done and haven’t “karma-cleaned” as it were, would be likely to have a less pleasant after-life. You’d also get to “interact” with all your loved ones, and your memories of them would be in some sense better than what you can consciously access–because, again, the unconscious has no “history,” so everything’s in there in tip-top shape.  Finally, I liked the connection with the William James excerpt from “Varieties of Religious Experience” that I’d recently posted here:

Let me then propose, as an hypothesis, that whatever it may be on its farther side, the “more” with which in religious experience we feel ourselves connected is on its hither side the subconscious continuation of our conscious life. Starting thus with a recognized psychological fact as our basis, we seem to preserve a contact with “science” which the ordinary theologian lacks. At the same time the theologian’s contention that the religious man is moved by an external power is vindicated, for it is one of the peculiarities of invasions from the [pg 513] subconscious region to take on objective appearances, and to suggest to the Subject an external control. In the religious life the control is felt as “higher”; but since on our hypothesis it is primarily the higher faculties of our own hidden mind which are controlling, the sense of union with the power beyond us is a sense of something, not merely apparently, but literally true.

The idea here is that “God” is really us, but that should be OK, at least from a personal standpoint, because the autonomous functions of the brain are about as “Other” as any spaghetti monster might be. We have no control over them: they completely run the show. Thus, those portions of our “minds” of which we are not conscious ought to be seen as being extremely potent and sufficiently “outside,” just like any father-figure ought to be.

Anyhow, when I mused about this stuff, I figured that I couldn’t have been the first to do so, and googled “dreams after-life.” One of the first things that came up was this piece by Bryon Ehlmann, a retired Ph.D. in computer science.

Ehlmann’s piece there isn’t very detailed, but he links a recent publication of his in the “Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research” (which can be seen on his academia.edu page). And he has a more recent–and more technical–article, still in draft on his academia page–in which he offers what he takes to be a proof of this theory.

I haven’t read this latter paper yet, and I’m skeptical about “proofs” generally. But I can imagine empirical dream studies of older and/or cognitively impaired individuals to find out if this “stretching” is actually going on. I’m doubtful even of the likelihood of strong empirical support, tbh. I mean it’s obviously a woo-drenched theory, something that can make the fearful naturalistic type a bit less anxious. I recognize that this is no more than a theory that is congenial to me….but I can’t deny that it really is comforting. And there’s nothing supernatural about it–except maybe the inferences.

ETA: I corrected the name of the Journal in which Dr. Ehlmann’s paper appeared.

162 thoughts on “A Natural After-Life

  1. Bryon: This is because the NAC is timeless. After one’s last conscious moment, they will indeed with the loss of all brain functionality lose all memory; however, nothing will happen to change their awareness of their last conscious moment at the instance in time that it happened since they never wake up. So, IN THEIR MIND, relativistically speaking, the moment is frozen forever

    What is the storage medium for this last conscious moment frozen forever?

  2. walto: I absolutely agree that dreamers are not aware that they are not swimming

    This doesn’t apply to me… Very often I’m aware that I’m dreaming especially when I’m flying, swimming or drowning… In the past I was even able to direct or change some parts of my dreams or I would able to wake up when the dream was too distressing…

  3. You or anyone else can convince me of my error if you can point out the flaw(s) in the following proof (basically, a restatement of my comments above):
    ———————————————–
    1. As stated in the NAC article: “One is aware of only what they perceive in these moments [discrete conscious moments] and can perceive of nothing outside of them to change their awareness.” Justification: Based on the perception of consciousness in only discrete conscious moments, and as you have stated: “outside of these moments [of ‘present moments’], you are aware of nothing. That is, there can be no awareness of death, dreamless sleep, or states of complete sedation. I believe that is nearly tautologous … .”

    2. “When dreaming that one is swimming, one is not aware they are not swimming until they wake up.” Justification: This is consistent with 1, and you’ve stated that you “absolutely agree” with this.

    3. When dreaming that one is swimming—i..e., dreamily aware one is swimming—one is not aware FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE they are not swimming until they wake up—i.e., perceive a new mind changing conscious moment. Justification: A simple expansion of 2 for more precision and perhaps clarity.

    4. Now assume one never wakes up, i.e., perceives no more conscious moments (and NOW becomes like a rock).

    5. Therefore, one is not aware FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE they are not swimming. Justification: Follows directly from 3.

    6. Also therefore, nothing will ever change their awareness that they are swimming (again, FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE). Justification: Follows directly from 1.
    ———————————————–

    You state: “Not being aware does not require or involve being aware either of this or that or of not this or that. All that it requires is the absence of any awareness at all. Rocks have the property.”

    What it seems “I’m not going to be able to convince you of” is that your statements above are true BUT NOT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF A DYING PERSON. When you make these statements, you are no longer in the mind of (awareness of) the dying person. You are stuck in an orthodox view of death predicated on always wanting (or needing?) to perceive it FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE LIVING. That is, as one of the living you are fully aware that the dying person has already or will soon lose all awareness—yes, becoming like a rock. BUT THE DYING PERSON IS NOT AND NEVER WILL BE AWARE OF THIS!

    I recommend you forget all analogies with rocks or video cameras as they, unlike us, have never experienced a conscious moment in their “lives.”

  4. J-Mac,

    There is no need for any storage medium since the NAC is timeless. This is addressed in the NAC article.

  5. Bryon: One is aware of only what they perceive in these moments [discrete conscious moments] and can perceive of nothing outside of them to change their awareness.”

    If “one “ ceases to exist , who is aware?

  6. Easy. 6 doesn”t follow from 5 (or ‘directly’ from 1). What it does is beg the question that you are attempting to prove; viz., that one must have some new awareness of something or other to be simply unaware, without consciousness, dead.

    Also (somewhat amazingly) J-mac has pointed out that 3 is false in lucid dreams. That’s an easier problem to fix, I believe, but the confusion that makes you think that 6 follows from 5 is, I believe, fatal to the argument.

    I think what may be confusing you is the idea of a ‘change’ in awareness. In 1, you say that there can only be a change when one becomes aware of something else. Well, yes and no. If by ‘change’ you mean that something else is now perceived, then yes; if we include in ‘changes’ a move from awareness to non-awareness, then you can’t assume that’s the case without begging the question. And that’s precisely what you ARE assuming (because you can’t prove it).

  7. Bryon:
    J-Mac,

    There is no need for any storage medium since the NAC is timeless.This is addressed in the NAC article.

    So is (timeless) the state of unconsciousness induced by the general anesthesia. During it people have no sense of time, don’t dream and they are not aware of anything and yet their other brain functions (other than indicators of awareness) are normal. They are alive but they are unconscious…
    When they are brought back to the state of full awareness, they don’t remember anything and the feel they were out for few seconds…
    Some kind of storage medium is necessary as almost all remember their experiences and are selfaware again..

  8. J-Mac,

    Of course, ‘timeless’ is also ambiguous. Sometimes it signifies no awareness of the passage of time, and sometimes it means….no passage of (external) time. So when Bryan claims the ‘NAC’ is timeless, he means there is no awareness of the passage of time. But memory, or as you correctly suggest, a ‘medium’ is made necessary by the passage of external time between the moment consciousness is lost and any subsequent (external) time.

    As I have said, the whole story here involves a mixup between being aware of nothing and not being aware. They don’t mean the same thing whenever ‘being aware of nothing’ implies ‘being aware.’

  9. Bryon,

    What you propose is a picture frame fozen in spacetime that somehow is supposed to be aware in the now moment of consciousness without a storage medium to account for its source…

  10. newton: If “one “ ceases to exist, who is aware?

    Exactly! Unless it’s quantum, timeless information that can be aware of the now moment of awareness on it’s own without a processor, like human brain when we are alive and conscious…

  11. walto:
    J-Mac,

    Of course, ‘timeless’ is also ambiguous. Sometimes it signifies no awareness of the passage of time, and sometimes it means….no passage of (external) time.

    I agree… But how do we know or can suspect that in case of consciousness ‘timeless’ can be ambiguous?

  12. walto:
    J-Mac,

    That question is above my pay grade.

    walto: my pay grade.

    I think so too…but I’m waiting for Bryon to respond first before I proceed with further implications of his theory….

  13. This will be my last attempt to keep walto and J-Mac (and perhaps newton) within the mind, i.e., perspective, of the dying person.

    OK, YOU ARE THAT PERSON.

    You are dreaming. You’re lying on the beach on a beautiful day, happy and content. Now, your dream ends and you enter a state of timelessness, but you are not aware of this. You never wake up. Instead, you die. Now, what do you perceive (i.e., are aware of) next? If you answer “Nothing.”, then I will ask, “How do you perceive NOTHING?”. If you answer, “You don’t perceive anything.”, then I will say “Then, you’re still not aware your dream has ended. That is, it’s essentially frozen in your mind–thus, essentially, your NAC.”

    I have no more to say.

  14. Bryon,

    If you answer, “You don’t perceive anything.”, then I will say “Then, you’re still not aware your dream has ended. That is, it’s essentially frozen in your mind –thus, essentially, your NAC.”

    [emphasis added]

    Frozen in “your mind”? What mind? You’re dead, so there is no longer a mind in which the dream can remain frozen.

  15. keiths: Frozen in “your mind”? What mind? You’re dead, so there is no longer a mind in which the dream can remain frozen.

    Exactly! Unless there is some kind of an external medium to store the frozen experience, such as quantum information, this theory is self-defeated… This medium would have to be self-aware mind you… at least to some degree…

  16. Bryon: If you answer, “You don’t perceive anything.”, then I will say “Then, you’re still not aware your dream has ended.

    And that would be correct.

    But, as keiths suggests, the following bit about what’s ‘frozen’ and where it’s ‘frozen’ just begs the question. You cannot simply assume that consciousness continues when someone dies, based on the fact that the deceased person has no new experiences! That is what the believer in an afterlife must PROVE! Not being aware that a dream has ended just does not imply continued awareness of the last dream image. The inference is mistaken, invalid.

  17. Bryon, consider another state one might be in, that of hunger. John is hungry at noon and gets nothing to eat, before being shot and killed at 12:05 pm. Must we say he is still hungry at 12:10 because his last conscious desire was for a burger? That he has never been sated just does not imply that he must still be hungry.

    Our disagreement is not a function of my unwillingness or incapacity to consider the situation from the perspective of the dying person rather than from that of an outside observer. It stems instead from your inability to see (or admit) that non-awareness does not imply awareness of nothing–whether we are talking about a rock or a sentient entity. That awareness of any kind continues after death is precisely what you must prove–and cannot just assume.

  18. walto,

    I said before I had no more to say? Well … . Perhaps a table, which is related to the previous dream scenario, can clarify things.

    See table below or click Table of Awareness for Previous Scenario.

    As can be seen in the table, you experience the last conscious moment of your dream at an instance of time t1 and for all eternity you never know (i.e., are “Not Aware”) that it was your last moment and that your dream has ended. So, this moment is FOR YOU timeless and everlasting, and no storage is required to sustain it.

    As conscious beings we experience a chain of conscious moments over a lifetime. With death we are simply consciously left in our last one. Such a straightforward concept! (Perhaps Occam’s razor should even be invoked.) So, why does it seem to be so difficult to explain, and why does it encounter such unbelievable resistance?

  19. Bryon,

    …and for all eternity you never know (i.e., are “Not Aware”) that it was your last moment and that your dream has ended.

    Once you’re dead, you no longer exist.

    So, this moment is FOR YOU timeless and everlasting, and no storage is required to sustain it.

    There is no “you” for whom the moment can be timeless and everlasting. You’re dead. You — and your mind — don’t exist any more.

    As conscious beings we experience a chain of conscious moments over a lifetime. With death we are simply consciously left in our last one.

    After death there is no “you” to be “consciously left in your last experience”. Consciousness does not continue when there is no brain to support it.

    Such a straightforward concept!

    Straightforwardly incorrect.

    So, why does it seem to be so difficult to explain…

    The problem is not with the explanation(s), but with the idea itself.

    …and why does it encounter such unbelievable resistance?

    Speaking for myself, I resist it because it is flawed. You’re making an obvious mistake, and I see no reason to repeat it.

  20. keiths: Speaking for myself, I resist it because it is flawed. You’re making an obvious mistake, and I see no reason to repeat it.

    How do you compare it with the theory of life origins? You don’t cut it a slack, do you?

  21. Bryon, I don’t know what else to say besides no no no. You just keep repeating the same fallacy. I’ve responded to it a dozen times now. Just reread what I’ve written above. Repeat this until you realize your error.

  22. Bryon:

    t5 You die, i.e., are declared brain-dead

    t > t5 You are in your after-life

    When you are brain-dead, there is no longer a “you” to experience an afterlife. Your experiences have all ended. You are now dead.

  23. I think it would be illustrative for you to remake your table based on the hungry murder victim. As I pointed out above, on your view, he must still be hungry.

  24. walto: As I pointed out above, on your view, he must still be hungry.

    Always hungry, always terrified forever and ever world without end with no hope of rescue.

    Dante for the irreligious

    peace

  25. fifthmonarchyman: Always hungry, always terrified forever and ever world without end with no hope of rescue.

    Dante for the irreligious

    peace

    Yes–an illuminating reductio.

  26. walto: Yes–an illuminating reductio.

    I don’t think that an inevitable unhappy afterlife necessarily constitutes a reductio ad absurdum.

    It just means that even from this particular secular perspective you still need a savior to set the world right.

    peace

  27. Bryon: You are dreaming. You’re lying on the beach on a beautiful day, happy and content. Now, your dream ends and you enter a state of timelessness, but you are not aware of this.

    Part of me might enter a state of timelessness but parts of me do not enter such a possible state.

    You never wake up. Instead, you die.

    All function eventually ceases.

    Now, what do you perceive (i.e., are aware of) next?

    My answer is “ unless perception/ awareness is independent of the physical interface, there is no perception going on.

    If you answer “Nothing.”, then I will ask, “How do you perceive NOTHING?”.

    You don’t, because if you perceived your action of perceiving that would be perceiving something. You would be at best an unaware awareness which would not be that much different than no awareness.

    If you answer, “You don’t perceive anything.”, then I will say “Then, you’re still not aware your dream has ended. That is, it’s essentially frozen in your mind–thus, essentially, your NAC.”

    You assume the mind continues after death, which basically is ghosts.

  28. keiths:
    Bryon:

    When you are brain-dead, there is no longer a “you” to experience an afterlife.Your experiences have all ended.You are now dead.

    That way of putting it begs the question against Bryan’s theory, although, admittedly, it is certainly the only position that can claim any support from either science or common sense. In any case, I think the farthest we can safely go is to claim that it is unquestionable that Bryan’s ‘proof’ assumes what it is intended to prove, that it commits the fallacy of petitio principii.

  29. walto

    That way of putting it begs the question against Bryan’s theory,

    No, because even Bryon acknowledges that awareness ends at death:

    t4 You lose the ability to ever be aware of anything.

    He just fails to recognize that a lack of awareness precludes the experience of an everlasting afterlife.

  30. walto: Bryon, I don’t know what else to say besides no no no. You just keep repeating the same fallacy.

    walto,

    And I don’t know what else to say either. From my viewpoint, you (and some of your colleagues on TSZ) just cannot seem to juggle the timeless, relativistic, and psychological aspects of the NAC all at the same time. Admittedly, the NAC is an illusion. It is hard to perceive by the living, but I believe you will perceive it in the end. The only trouble is then you won’t be aware enough to realize “You know, Bryon was right after all.” 🙂

    Thank you for your patience (it took a lot from both of us) and for forcing me to keep digging deeper to find new ways to try to explain my theory. I feel I’ve made some real improvements to my article as a result.

    So, I bid Good Bye to this discussion.

    Best to you and all,
    Bryon

  31. Bryon, I’m sorry that, instead of carefully reading the critiques you have been given, you have concentrated on trying to put the same point in different ways in an attempt to convince people that you’re right.

    That your argument is fallacious is not an opinion I happen to hold. It’s as clear as any point in elementary logic can be. It’s not some sort of debatable matter that you might turn out to be right about.

    I mean, you might be right that there is a natural afterlife. No one should be sure about THAT. But what we CAN be absolutely certain about (or at least as certain as we may be about anything) is that your proof doesn’t work. Anyone you might run into who thinks it does is simply mistaken. I’m sorry about this, but those are the plain facts.

  32. Bryon,

    From my viewpoint, you (and some of your colleagues on TSZ) just cannot seem to juggle the timeless, relativistic, and psychological aspects of the NAC all at the same time.

    Your idea isn’t hard to understand, Bryon. It’s just wrong.

    We can explain exactly where your thinking goes off the rails, and we’ve done so repeatedly. As walto points out, you’ve offered no defense. Instead you’ve simply restated your mistaken “proof”.

    Instead of fleeing, why not try to understand your error, which we’ve been patiently explaining to you?

  33. newton: You assume the mind continues after death, which basically is ghosts.

    I think you are mistaken here.

    He does not assume that the mind continues after death. instead he assumes (rightly) that the mind can not experience it’s own demise and therefore instead is locked in the last moment of consciousness.

    If I understand him he seems to be saying that for the conscious observer time itself ceases at the moment just before death.

    peace

  34. walto: But what we CAN be absolutely certain about (or at least as certain as we may be about anything) is that your proof doesn’t work.

    I think it depends on what exactly consciousness is.

    I believe Bryon has a novel understanding of consciousness in that he thinks it can exist A-temporally. I’m not sure how that works it’s self out.

    If human consciousness could exist in an A-temporal changeless state I think his “proof” might be interesting.

    As it is I can’t get my head around it to even get started.
    peace

  35. fifthmonarchyman: I think it depends on what exactlyconsciousness is.

    I believe Bryon has a novel understanding of consciousness in that he thinks it can exist A-temporally. I’m not sure how that works it’s self out.

    If human consciousness could exist in an A-temporal changeless state I think his “proof” might be interesting.

    As it is I can’t get my head around it to even get started.
    peace

    Has Bryon ever explained what his view/understanding of consciousness is? If he did, I must have missed it…

  36. J-Mac: Has Bryon ever explained what his view/understanding of consciousness is?

    I don’t think so.
    But his proposal places strong limits on the definition that will work.

    then there is this

    quote:

    From my viewpoint, you (and some of your colleagues on TSZ) just cannot seem to juggle the timeless, relativistic, and psychological aspects of the NAC all at the same time.

    end quote:

    peace

  37. fifthmonarchyman: I don’t think so.
    But his proposal places strong limits on the definition that will work.

    then there is this

    quote:

    From my viewpoint, you (and some of your colleagues on TSZ) just cannot seem to juggle the timeless, relativistic, and psychological aspects of the NAC all at the same time.

    end quote:

    peace

    I’m glad you quoted it. I’m done with his nonsense… He’s a waste of time.
    Thanks fifth!

  38. walto:
    Bryon, I’m sorry that, instead of carefully reading the critiques you have been given, you have concentrated on trying to put the same point in different ways in an attempt to convince people that you’re right.

    That your argument is fallacious is not an opinion I happen to hold. It’s as clear as any point in elementary logic can be. It’s not some sort of debatable matter that you might turn out to be right about.

    I mean, you might be right that there is a natural afterlife. No one should be sure about THAT.But what we CAN be absolutely certain about (or at least as certain as we may be about anything) is that your proof doesn’t work. Anyone you might run into who thinks it does is simply mistaken. I’m sorry about this, but those are the plain facts.

    What are you sorry about, walto?
    Bryon proposed a nonsense theory that didn’t even survive the criticism of 3 bloggers here…Why should anybody else take it seriously?

  39. fifthmonarchyman: I think it depends on what exactlyconsciousness is.

    I believe Bryon has a novel understanding of consciousness in that he thinks it can exist A-temporally. I’m not sure how that works it’s self out.

    If human consciousness could exist in an A-temporal changeless state I think his “proof” might be interesting.

    As it is I can’t get my head around it to even get started.
    peace

    It’s true that you might be able to concoct a proof if you meant by ‘consciousness’ something different from what everybody else does, but, as written it would still be formally invalid for the reasons I gave above, non-awareness does not entail awareness of nothing, and the proof requires it to.

  40. walto: as written it would still be formally invalid for the reasons I gave above

    Agreed.
    As always definitions are usually where these sorts of things go off the rails.

    I do really enjoy atheist attempts to get to the resurrection with out revelation, Kurzweil’s singularity is good example another is Tipler’s Physics of Immortality

    It helps to clarify my own thoughts on the subject.

    Thanks for the effort Byron

    peace

  41. I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here, FMM. My interest (as you can see from my OP) is indeed to find the possibility of some sort of afterlife that does not involve what I take to be a character from Storyville and other accoutrements that seem to me either silly, incomprehensible, unpleasant, or all three. Perhaps, Kurzweil, Tipler, and Ehlmann, have the same interests. I don’t know.

    I’ve told the last of those three folks several times of this interest of mine, precisely because I agree with you, J-mac and keiths that the concept needs a lot more work. You can’t get there from our work-a-day notion of consciousness via a “proof” utilizing non-awareness of time change. As you surely understand, and likely Kurzweil and Tipler too, something else is required.

    You get whatever it is YOU get via ‘revelation’, while what I aimed at (see my OP and first couple posts) is a sea change in the nature of experience that is pointed to by (I) what seems to be hapening to consciousness and memory among some who are close to death, and (II) some different sort of understanding of what time is, that, for J-mac and me, is down at the woo level, but, perhaps for Carlo Rovelli and other scientists actually studying these issues, may make a glimmer of sense.

    The essential point that Bryan has missed, but that you, keiths and (even) J-mac have not is that claims for an afterlife cannot be established easily. There will be no ‘proof.’ There must be deeper understanding of the natures of both consciousness and time than are available to the layman using common sense notions.

    This is a topic that interests me, but my physics chops barely allow me to get through Rovelli’s popular science books, and the empirical data currently available on time consciousness among the elderly is very slim. I want there to be something to the NAC thesis and think there actually may be, but Bryon is too keen on convincing people that his fallacious argument works to be among the people that are likely to make any progress on it. (And my sense from his new book is that Rovelli’s philosophy chops are too rudimentary for him to get very far without help.)

    But as J-Mac has pointed out, it’s pretty obvious that simply saying we’ll still be ‘timelessly aware’ (even if true) doesn’t tell us anything. The complexities there are pointed up by my discussion with keiths on intentionality above. I mean, what is ‘freeze-frame’ awareness anyhow? One everlasting ‘blech’? A taste of lime?

  42. walto,

    Hey walto,

    Did you read that bit of Scifi that I linked? I found it to be very thought provoking.

    It was exploring immortality from the perspective of the many worlds interpretation of QM.

    You should check it out.

    peace

  43. fifth:

    I do really enjoy atheist attempts to get to the resurrection with out revelation, Kurzweil’s singularity is good example another is Tipler’s Physics of Immortality

    Tipler is not an atheist, and in fact he wrote a sequel called The Physics of Christianity.

  44. fifthmonarchyman: It was exploring immortality from the perspective of the many worlds interpretation of QM.

    Immortality? The many worlds interpretation of QM was reintroduced to deal with the problem, or rather, not to deal with the obvious problem of the fine tuning of the cosmological constant… among other problems unexplainable by current ideology of randomness of the big bang theory…
    Now, they have another problem with the special direction in space as revealed by CMBs…

  45. walto,

    Walton,
    Bryon’s main problem is that lack of mechanism for NAC.
    At least quantum consciousness/soul supporters, like Hameroff, have the quantum information conservation law, the experiments proving that there are quantum vibrations in microtubules, and people are totally unconscious when under general anesthesia…

    I’d be more willing to believe them than Bryon…

Leave a Reply