fair point

maybe when I can be arsed I will

That's the spirit!

I know that the past is alive, and so believe that life is something permanent, though I can't reckon with why we don't experience the past, present, and future all at once, and have no idea what the linear progression of death means when there is a living past. But this non-linear understanding of time, which is at once part of my understanding and incomprehensible to me, is vital to understanding the fixture of consciousness in the universe.

There is no beginning or end, and consciousness is a permanent fixture of the cosmos, and most likely exists as a non-local field. But if you limit your perspective to linear time, as virtually everyone does, there can't be any intellectual progression, because as it appears is certainly not as it is.

NDEs can be correlated to brain chemistry and still be indicative of a profound underlying reality. The physical world isn't distinct from the spiritual.

This is pretty self-evident when you think about it. What's outlandish is the popular conception that each passing moment stands on the foundation of that which no longer exists. In which case, what is reality but a hallucination anyway?

So you can have it either way. Either we're essentially a phantasm with no living past, or our perception of linear time is insufficient. I believe it's both. And to me, if you want to discuss the progression of consciousness through time, the time has come to address this.

You can only die in time. Where there is no time, there is no death.

And to me, if you want to discuss the progression of consciousness through time, the time has come to address this. — neonspectraltoast

Interesting. What do you mean by the progression of consciousness through time? Do you mean the evolution of human cognitive capacity across history, or something more numinous?

There is no beginning or end, and consciousness is a permanent fixture of the cosmos, and most likely exists as a non-local field. — neonspectraltoast

How have you established this to be the case? Do you subscribe to idealism?

But if you limit your perspective to linear time, as virtually everyone does, there can't be any intellectual progression, because as it appears is certainly not as it is. — neonspectraltoast

Maybe for speculative mental excursions, but do we have any choice about this in what we generally call reality? Without linear time, crossing the road, setting goals, writing a letter would likely be impossible. But whether linear time is actually true or not outside of human cognitive gestalts may not be all that relevant since humans seem to have no choice but to embrace the beginning, middle and end of matters.

I wish I knew how to quote everything so I could answer more succinctly, but I don't (and these buttons are too small on my phone.)

By linear progression of consciousness I meant what becomes of consciousness after what we call death.

I won't explain how, but I have seen evidence of a living past, so let's just say I firmly believe in that, though it's a pretty well-established theory among physicists anyway, so I don't see why it so seldom pertains to discussions such as these.

I personally believe in a cosmic feedback loop where brains do produce a non-local field of consciousness that in turn creates things like brains. Outside of linear time it's all self-sufficient.

If we're always going to think in terms of our experience, there's no way we're going to cut to the truth.

But even as simply a theory of Einstein's, there should be more thought given in such discussion to the idea that all time exists at once.

This is certainly akin to what I believe, though I readily admit I have no idea what happens to consciousness after death, but I think the two are related.

As I say, I've witnessed things that cause me to believe that the past is alive and well, and I don't know...maybe better minds can wrap theirs around what consciousness is really like in relation to a block universe.

I really do think thinking in a framework of non-linear time, despite all the inherent difficulty thereof, is the path forward. And I can vaguely see how it would be self-sufficient and incorporate both physicalism and spiritualism.

I mean, it probably is true that brains generate consciousness, but that doesn't speak to how consciousness interacts with all perceived dimensions of reality, if we're to be honest. I think they are truly timeless and generate a non-local field.

But it has been too much for me to wrap my mind around. Doesn't mean it's not the way forward, though.