It’s like if newton was coming up with the laws of physics then suddenly said “but of course these are the default laws of physics and it is possible we can change them through faith”. — Khaled

Newton's domain was the observable universe, my domain in the article includes the after-life, quite a difference. The after-life is not observable and thus cannot be restricted (via laws) by science. Thus I cannot state in the article that the NEC (possibly a natural afterlife) is indeed the only after-life that is possible. Science does not support this, and I want to make this clear to my readers.

Again, the NEC theory assumes:

that the before-life and after-life are ... presumed devoid of any supernatural consciousness. — Ehlmann, p. 58

So, essentially what the NEC theory claims (and can only claim) is that IF no supernatural afterlife follows death, then you will never know that your last experience is over. Moreover, the theory can claim this scientifically only because the NEC (possibly a natural afterlife) takes place before death and nothing happens at death (known to science) that will change your "never knowing"--i.e., the NEC is a lifetime phenomenon, a psychological illusion, that happens in this material universe. Bluntly speaking, what happens after death, science still cannot answer and still cannot rule out some faith-based, heaven, hell, or reincarnation.

First, quoted from the article:

Not to think this last statement, as well as the idea of a natural eternal con-sciousness, absurd, one must first be informed that the before-life and after-life are, when not explicitly or otherwise stated in this article, presumed devoid of any supernatural consciousness. — Ehlmann, p. 56

In my statement regarding the NEC as a default after-life, I'm explicitly now raising the possibility of some supernatural afterlife.

Second, I can't offer "an explanation as to how our beliefs can so drastically change the experience of death." After all, such change would be, admittedly, supernatural!

Third, I agree that an "AFTER-death type of NEAR death experience is a contradiction." I have argued the same with those who believe that the NDE occurs after death. My article assumes it does not (see top of p. 58.) Here, I am just stating that if it does (something I don't believe), such an after-death experience would override the NEC.

Finally, I can't offer such explanation. Again, such overriding would be supernatural and thus a matter of faith.

It seems in reading my article, you sometimes misinterpret what I'm saying and by doing so, jump to some wrong conclusions about what you think I believe. Perhaps my writing is not making clear the subtleties.

Page 62 in the article:

The theory, however, merely defines the NEC, implicitly claiming it as the default after-life. It does not deny the existence of a supernatural eternal consciousness or afterlife no matter how apparently illogical or (at least for now seemingly) unscientific. Such an eternal consciousness could be an after-death type of NDE or some other afterlife that immediately or later overrides the NEC — e.g., a reincarnation or a resurrection of body and soul. — Ehlmann

It relates in the sense that, as the article indicates, the natural afterlife could serve as an intermediate state between life and some faith-based, supernatural afterlife, but I will let others who are well-versed in Buddhist teachings make there own comparisons. It is certainly true that many people who have recovered from NDEs have reported the experience as extremely enlightening. Who knows, perhaps such enlightenment is needed before a rebirth?

And what, if anything, happens between the time of death and the time of reincarnation?

It is addressed in the article. Dreams and NDEs before death can override any last wakeful moment.

You state "I think you’ve provided a plausible theory but not a proof for it." If you think this way, you should point out specifically a flaw in the logical deduction or the basic psychological priniciples upon which the "proof" is based.

You state "Most religions describe a chain of events leading to ascension to heaven." You need to describe this chain of events more specifically. I know of no such chain, at least in Christianity.

Regarding reincarnation, a quote from the referenced article:

The theory, however, merely defines the NEC, implicitly claiming it as the default after-life. It does not deny the existence of a supernatural eternal consciousness or afterlife no matter how apparently illogical or (at least for now seemingly) unscientific. Such an eternal consciousness could be an after-death type of NDE or some other afterlife that immediately or later overrides the NEC — e.g., a reincarnation or a resurrection of body and soul. — Bryon K. Ehlmann

Who or what states that an afterlife must be time perceptive, i.e., filled with happenings, rather than timeless?

Timelessness can never be perceived, either before-life or after-life.

To: substantivalism and tim wood and others of like mind

I'm not interested here in debating with those who don't understand or appreciate the essence of the natural afterlife. I've "been there, done that" on other forums often enough. The natural afterlife is an illusion that occurs only at death. I believe the article I reference does the best job I can do in explaining it, but the article needs to been read closely with an open mind. Admittedly, the natural afterlife's timeless and relativistic aspects make it hard to grasp and appreciate. Think about getting someone to accept the existence of a rainbow and to appreciate it when they've never experienced one.

While others can respond to substantivalism and tim wood and others who remain strong believers in (and perhaps wish to cling to) Hypothesis 1, I will only response to "those who ... are at least open to Hypothesis 2" and wish to answer and discuss the questions I pose.

It seems obvious you didn't read the article, so I won't debate you on the points you make.

You don't say why "it would become its own hell." Remember, the natural afterlife is timeless, thus it can't "become" anything, it's static and so "is what it is."

My point was that a sudden spike just prior to death is not the same as a spike followed by a gradual decrease in brain activity representing "intermediate levels of awareness, including groggy, foggy, indeterminate, incoherent, disoriented, apathetic, etc."

Have you seen many scientific studies that support notion that NDEs result from the process of the brain shutting down and are seen as a sudden spike in brain activity just prior to death?

So you believe that when brain function deteriorates near-death below the threshold allowing for the NDE, the brain will somehow still manage to produce a discrete conscious moment that will inform us of our death? Okay, I'll let you hang your hat on that belief, but remember deteriorated states of which you speak, i.e. a state 2, must be perceived.

This will be my last reply. I believe you're taken the discussion down to a level of brain activity that has never been perceived by the living and thus one that can only be speculated about in future discussions.

You state: "It is absolutely certain that the last states of neural activity one will experience will not be complex bliss but disorientation, confusion, incoherence or something less organized."

Oh really, "absolutely certain"? Can you give some references for this? Some research that backs up such certainty? From the numerous reports by NDE survivors, which are well documented in books and articles, I don't believe you will find recounted such experiences of "disorientation, confusion, incoherence or something less organized" at the end of their NDEs. When I wake up from dreams, I don't recall such experiences. Do you?

You also state: "If you're going to argue, as Ehlmann has, that each frame of consciousness carries its own discrete meaning, then it is contradictory to arbitrarily choose the blissful frame as the last one that will be remembered when we know it will not be the last state of mind for a dying person."

Again, "we know"? Really? There may be more states of mind for a dying person after the last final conscious moment but they're likely at a subconscious level and result in the production of no new discrete conscious moment. Such production likely requires assimilating subconscious results and rendering them at a higher level of consciousness.

And once again, don't forget that with the NEC words like "recall" and "remembered" are not applicable. The NEC is timeless. The last conscious moment happens at a point in time, it becomes part of one's consciousness at that point, and nothing--i.e., no new awareness--happens to undo it. Forgetting takes time and besides there is no reason to "recall" the final moment because by definition its recall can never become a new present, discrete conscious moment.

I believe you are having trouble keeping the timeless nature of the NEC in mind as you continue to speculate and strain in order to somehow turn the final conscious moment into something the will inform the dying person that they are dying, perhaps in order to destroy any perception of eternal bliss that they may have. :-)

How does a neural net function? Should it be modeled as a computational system, a distributed parallel, dynamic, a connectionist architecture, or via a non-representational enactivist description? The differences in these approaches are key to assumptions concerning what consciousness might be. — Joshs

These questions are not relevant to the NEC theory. That is, it does not matter how the neural net functions to form the final conscious moment, how this network should be modeled, or what consciousness as represented by this moment might be.

I've read Robert Lanza's books on Biocentrism and my thinking much aligns with his on the critical role of consciousness in understanding the nature of our universe, but I thought his discussions of death in these books were ambiguous and inadequate and wrote him concerning this. He asks the question "But does this energy transcend from one world to the other?," but he never answers it or explains the how. Perhaps when oxygen and nutrition are no longer consumed and blood flow ceases to supply energy to the brain, the "‘Who am I?’ ... 20-watt fountain of energy operating in the brain" may just dissipate as leftover heat into the environment as the body turns cold. So is there really any energy left? I believe the NEC theory is more explainable than is his and actually more consistent with Biocentrism with its emphasis on perception, i.e., that our universe is that which we perceive. Besides, the NEC requires no energy at death or beyond for sustainability!

Also, unlike the theories of Hameroff and Roger Penrose, the NEC theory is compatible with "the current models in physics." It requires no "new physics." Moreover, while I draw upon modeling techniques used in computer science to model states of mind, events, and moments in order to explain the theory, I do not believe I assume "older information processing models of consciousness" or use "the computer as a metaphor for how thought functions." The theory's basis is the concept of discrete conscious moments, one present moment at a time. The underlying type of processing required to produce these moments is not material to the theory.

I reference works of Bruce Greyson, Emily Williams Kelly, and Edward F. Kelly to support some of my characterizations of NDEs.. Just because one references another article to support a statement does not mean they subscribe to all of the claims or positions taken by that article or those of its authors.

You are right in that my theory is novel. Indeed, it does not conform to the positions of Hameroff, Penrose, Lanza, and I imagine most philosophers. Nor need it conform. In terms of subjectivity, a final conscious moment, and so an NEC, can range from dull to extremely intense and from an all encompassing thought of dying at any moment to a sensually gratifying and pleasurable "awareness" of spending an eternity in heaven. The precise "nature of subjective experience" is not specified by the theory and thus need not be determined via any empirical testing designed to test the theory. The "idea of a subjective state as potentially freezable, out of time and absent of material conditions" is not so radical. It simply boils down to never being aware that your final conscious moment was indeed final. I'm very tempted here to state "Duh!" :-)

You state "But I would be willing to lay down big money that if you submitted your article to Hameroff, Penrose or Lanza, they would likely make the same argument as I would." First, what is your specific argument when stripped of much that I've pointed out is irrelevant to the NEC theory? Second, so what? The three you mentioned have their own theories about an afterlife that I too could argue against. And besides, unlike theirs, my theory makes no claims about anything materially surviving after death, i.e., energy, and thus is compatible with current models of physics.

Finally, I believe my article has already "fleshed out the philosophical presuppositions grounding it." The following presuppositions are much discussed.
- the perception of time as relative to an ordered sequence of events
- a consciousness that occurs only in discrete conscious moments, one present moment at a time
- the inability to perceive the transition from a time-perceiving state into a timeless state.

???? I'm still not sure we disagree.

My final word on this: True, a scientific theory can never be proven, only falsified. However, in the scientific literature the term "verify" is often used in the context of a test, experiment, or study. In this context, it is understood that the reader recognizes that "verify" means only "verified in this case," not "verified once and for all."

That is a totally different subject than what is being discussed here.

See also Einstein's "Time Dilation" Prediction Verified. I'm only saying that I use the term "verify" consistent with its common scientific usage.

Read the first few paragraphs of the article Einstein Was Right! Scientists Confirm General Relativity Works With Distant Galaxy and you should see how words like "confirm," "validate," and yes often "verify" (though not specifically here) are used in regard to the results of an experiment related to a theory.

If you read or studied my NEC Theory article more carefully, I believe you might understand why I have no interest in arguing with you on the issues you raise.

True, you can view a scientific experiment as focusing on trying to falsify a theory, but if the results confirm the theory, the experiment can be said to have verified the theory.

If no one has ever seen a black swan then "there are no black swans" can be legitimately called a scientific theory (though a very narrowly focused one), and every time someone sees a black swan the theory is verified.

Hey, we've only talking about the appropriate use of a word here. I think we are in agreement on the substance, i.e., what is a scientific theory.

The term "verified" is widely used in connection with scientific theories. To illustrate its wide usage, the first sentence given for the definition of "scientific theory" in Wikipedia reads:

"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified [my emphasis] in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results."

"Verified" does not mean "proven once and for all." Rather, it means, as given in dictionary.com: "confirmed as to accuracy or truth by acceptable evidence, action, etc." The action here being testing. An acceptable test is performed and the theory is either verified or falsified by the test.

I use the word "theory" in my NEC article in its scientific sense. A scientific theory is an explanation of some natural phenomenon that is based on evidence that has been confirmed through observation and experiment. The theory itself must be able to be empirically verified or falsified.

I claim the NEC theory can be so verified or falsified because unlike all other claims of some postmortem consciousness, the NEC actually occurs psychologically before death and nothing can occur within the psychological timeliness that follows, either just before death and after death, that can affect it. The NEC article discusses the theory's validity as a scientific theory is much detail.

See my post A Natural (vs. Supernatural) Eternal Consciousness and Afterlife, which is very relevant to this discussion. It defines Hypothesis 1 and 2, which are referred to in many of my comments.

You seem to have chosen to ignore much scientific research, which is referenced in my NEC article, that our consciousness is indeed divided into discrete conscious moments. Perhaps this is because you cannot grasp how this can be possible as evidenced by your example of listening to music. This seems to be the case despite the likelihood that you've had meaningful experiences that became part of your consciousness while watching movies via the rapid sequential display of discrete visual frames and while listening to dialog and music via the rapid sequential processing of discrete markings on a digital recording.

Relatedly, you cannot seem to imagine how "freezing' an experience at a point in time, i.e., after a discrete conscious moment, can leave one perceiving that they are still in that experience. This is true despite the fact that I'm sure you've paused a movie without losing all of the experience up to that point including the emotions that were evoked. Ditto for your dreams that were "paused" (and ended) because you woke up.

Finally, you fail to adequately answer the basic question I asked: "Assuming someone dies without ever awakening after having let's say a dream or NDE, precisely what will they perceive to make them aware that those last "features, contours, ...," present in their last conscious dream or NDE moment, are no more? Your seemingly off-the-cuff, hyper speculation that the final conscious moment would actually morph into three events in the "process" of being "frozen" is ridiculous. It again fails to accept the empirical evidence that a discrete conscious moment is a static (timeless) state that once produced will not change and requires no change. It also speculates that the final conscious moment somehow becomes multiple conscious, meaning perceived, moments so as to not make the final conscious moment really final. (Btw, "boredom" requires the passage of time, which for the dying person has ended.)

I feel you're now really stretching it so as to cling to Hypothesis 1, which is referenced in my next comment below. For my part, I believe our dialog has concluded.

Words like "duration" or "persistence" are often used by those arguing against the NEC but viewing it from the wrong perspective, the material perspective of the living. The eternal aspect of the NEC, which implies duration and persistence, can only be seen from the perspective of the dying person. From this perspective the NEC is eternal. The living need to view this as an illusion.

You state "So your timeless state, if it is to be a state of features, contours, shapes, colors, must be in continual process of transformation in order to be what it is, and this is the very definition of time."

You seem to be saying that any "state of features, contours, ... " cannot be timeless. Is the state captured by a photograph or by the frame of a motion picture not timeless? Is a discrete conscious moment itself, which is rendered by the brain based on "continual" unconscious processing within the brain, not timeless? Once rendered, the content of such moment never changes but is only replaced some milliseconds later by another such moment.

My article on the NEC Theory states: "The present moment includes our sense of the flow of time, of self, and of life by incorporating selective memories of past conscious moments and the anticipation of future ones—especially the next one, which we naturally assume will be consistent with the last."

Is perhaps the perceived change you seek not already incorporated into each discrete conscious moment by "the selective memories past conscious moments" or perhaps the unconscious processing of ever-changing sensual information? See the (Herzog, Kammer, & Scharnowski, 2016) reference in the NEC article.

The NEC article also states: "One is aware of only what one perceives in these [discrete conscious] moments." So, in trying to grasp the NEC, the most basis question is: Assuming someone dies without ever awakening after having let's say a dream or NDE, precisely what will they perceive to make them aware that those last "features, contours, ...," present in their last conscious dream or NDE moment, are no more?

You state: "The idea of a presence with no content , texture, contour, outline, features, is incoherent." I agree with you here, as I make clear in my article Why Something vs. Nothing and the Essentialness of Consciousness.

In analyzing your statement

"If there is no time, there is no change. If there is no change, there is no contrast. If there is no
contrast, there is no presence. If there is no presence, there is no NEC."

I believe it's important to clearly identify the observer and what is being observed if anything. It is also important to recognize that with the NEC we are not just dealing with a timeless state but with the transition into this state. With the NEC the observer is the dying person and what is being observed, or perceived, is their final conscious moment--be it an awake, dream, or NDE moment--followed by timelessness, which cannot be observed. This final moment is observed by the dying person in some state of mind at t1. Then the dying person transitions into a forever timeless state and thus (assuming no supernatural afterlife) there is no state at t2 wherein anything can be further observed. Thus there is no change from the state at t1 that can ever be observed and thus no observed contrast between the state at t1 and a subsequent state at t2. However, contrast in "content, texture, contour, outline, features" was observed by the dying person within the state at t1, Furthermore, from the perspective of the dying person, this state is still present in the mind as the final present moment is not supplanted by another--i.e., no perceived "blank screen", "The End," or observed darkness moment (unless the darkness behind the eyelids is the visual part of the final moment). Thus from the perspective of the observer, the dying person, there is contrast and presence and both are imperceptibly timeless.

"If there is no time, there is no change." True. "If there is no change, there is no contrast." True, at least there can be no contrast between two different states occurring at different times, say time t1 and t2. "If there is no contrast, there is no presence." False! There is still the presence of the state occurring at t1. "If there is no presence, ..." But there is a presence! Therefore, your conclusion does not follow.

I believe the brain is physical and the mind is a process that produces consciousness. Consciousness itself, however, is not physical and in regard to the natural eternal consciousness (NEC), does not have to be maintained. To "maintain" implies the passage of time. The NEC is timeless.

You can't just "simply think" when it comes to grasping the NEC. :wink: You have to think deeply, putting and keeping yourself in the mind (i.e., within the perspective) of the dying person to the end.

You state "I'd imagine in the former case - [the eternal experience of the final moment case] -you would recall being in a moment for an extended period of time - would you agree with that?" Absolutely not! Memory and recall is not necessary for the NEC because it is timeless. Such things are only applicable to the passage of time.

You state: "there is no experience at all at a certain point. You never become aware or know of when exactly that happens, but it does happen." This is true from the perspective of the living but irrelevant from the perspective of the dying person. From this latter perspective, there is the awareness of an experience as represented by a final conscious moment and, though this moment is materially erased, it will never be psychologically erased because it's never replaced by another moment. Moreover, it can't be forgotten as that takes time, which for the dying person has unknowingly ceased.

Think about it!

The NED theory claims that death is a forever Pause relative to the dying person and a Stop relative to the living. Thus its relativistic nature.

But how do you know it ends?

So, when you are dreaming, at what point do you know that the dream is over and that you are no longer experiencing it? Answer: Not until you wake up. And if you've experienced general anesthesia, at what point do you know that you are not in the operating room being given the anesthesia? Answer: Not until you wake up (experiencing a new present moment). And if you never wake up?

There's the saying "Don't judge a book by its cover" and perhaps one shouldn't judge an article solely by its publisher. New ideas that challenge current orthodoxy, e.g., that the earth revolves around the sun, are at first widely and readily rejected, even ridiculed. Also, it doesn't help when the idea is hard to grasp, provocative, and put forward by someone not in the related discipline, here for the most part psychology.

Elliott, M. A., & Giersch, A. (2016). What happens in a moment. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(1905). DOI: doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01905.

I very much appreciate that you seem to be trying to grasp my theory instead of just readily dismissing it as ridiculous as is often done. I know it is way "outside the box" and requires much contemplation on one's part before it can be accepted. First, I will address your questions and then later reply to some of the comments of others.

I am new to The Philosophy Forum and yesterday initiated my first discussion by posting a short essay. See A Natural (vs. Supernatural) Eternal Consciousness and Afterlife. The essay may help you and others better understand how a seemingly impossible natural eternal consciousness (NEC) is possible given a non-existent brain. I will reference this essay below and dialog further on the NEC as part of the above referenced discussion rather then here. I do this because I would like others to at least read the essay before they engage in a discussion of the NEC and I would like not to have the address the same questions and concerns in two different places.

You first question: "There will no longer be a self to consciously experience this last moment, so how can it be that this moment will continue forever?"

The sense of self is present in the last conscious moment. Then it is no more. BUT, this lost of self in never perceived by the dying person. The last conscious moment is experienced at a point of time t, and this experience can never be undone from the perspective of the dying person. It is irrelevant to the dying person that the moment will not continue forever, i.e., after t.

Second set of questions: "How specific is this static moment? Is it an everlasting experience of the second before we die? A millisecond? This quickly becomes an irrational thing to discuss."

Conscious moments are perceived approximately every 40-50 milliseconds. The duration is irrelevant since it is unchanging. It is deceptively everlasting, but again only from the perspective of the dying person, the second before brain death if it occurs before one second before such death. It is not, however, everlasting from the perspective of the living. I don't believe it is "an irrational thing to discuss" as long as we keep the two perspectives straight.

Third question: "What if we die in some horrible way and are suffering until our last moments? ..."

This is the common concern of many when first encountering the NEC theory, i.e., with Hypothesis 2 (see essay in the above referenced discussion). The article you and this discussion references states: "Will this perhaps terrifying moment become the NEC? Or will it, as often seen after recovery, have been graciously replaced via amnesia and a “rewind (◄◄)” to some prior present moment?". Also, a horrible last moment can be supplanted by a subsequent dream or NDE moment. Whether this is done by nature or a God is a question for philosophy and religion. For those who cling to Hypothesis 1 despite its uncertainty (see the essay), your question can (or should?) be seen in some respects as similar to the question "What if there is a Hell?"