not in between. But you said explicitly on multiple occasions in your paper that the event of death is not followed by any other events. That’s where it’s incompatible with reincarnation as reincarnation would require, you know, another birth event after death. And with any form of afterlife really.

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

What interested me about this was not the paper, nor the fact that a retired comp. sci. prof would start writing such papers, but the journal that published it. Journal of Mind and Behavior looks like a small, obscure journal, but it doesn't look like a predatory open-access publication that will publish any drek for a fee: it is indexed, it is associated with the University of Main and it is edited by respectable academics. Its content, however, is an odd mix of some psychology papers and some pretty random, nominally philosophical stuff (some of which may be OK - I haven't looked that deep).

I don't have that much experience with academic publishing, and none in this area. If anyone knows more about this - what's the deal here? How common are such journals?

I agree with Wayfarer
As Wayfarer states..
clear light of reality is not a concept.
Clear light is described in Buddhist philosophy. Call it what you like but in the calling it is missed.
So very true.
My initial post extends my apologies for my poor and fragmentary summations on the deep Buddhist philosophy of emptiness and clear light.
The clear light of awareness is not knowable.

From the texts I have studied it appears that beings will experience the clear light awareness briefly in the Bardo of dying between life and life.
Without proper training and meditation the glimpse of the infinite clear light will be quite a confusing and perhaps frightening experience.
Do I know this with certainty. No I do not.

a consciousness in the clear light of awareness is at complete peace as the clear light has infinite capacity.
Nothing needs to be "done" as all of existence is within the openness of awareness.
We are already there.
In death our conceptions are stripped away.

I don't have that much experience with academic publishing, and none in this area. If anyone knows more about this - what's the deal here? How common are such journals? — SophistiCat

Thirty years ago a colleague at the University of St Andrews and I created something similar as a means of communicating new information about certain mathematical topics. For some time we accepted abstracts and research notes, lightly "peer reviewed" or refereed by the two of us. For about ten years we published the journal once a year, supported by our respective institutions and sent free of charge to participants. After I retired the journal was taken over by another colleague at another university as an on-line only format. The journal still exists, but the generation of mathematicians who contributed is depleted to such an extent that its existence is marginal and inconsequential.

These publications may exist as means of communicating material that is fairly speculative, and not suitable for the more rigorous and formal journals - those that print more for popular academic pursuits.

Another journal comes to mind: Foundations of Physics Letters. A bit more sophisticated than the efforts I have described. Nevertheless, even with putative more stringent refereeing some real doozies are printed, like Peter Lynds' article on the nature of time: Peter Lynds and Time

The journal passed away. :cry:

Publishing in a well-accredited refereed journal in math takes more effort by the author to conform to specific requirements, and the refereeing process is usually more rigorous. Also, the topic should somehow fit into the general areas of interest at the time. But this does not preclude questionable refereeing. I have seen this up close.

I know little about journals in the social sciences, but my impression is that levels of rigor may be less. Fake Papers in the Social Sciences

I've read the article - well, more or less - it's 26 pages long and repetitive and I skimmed over some sections. The principle thesis seems to be that at the very last instant before final termination of consciousness at death, there is a kind of freezing of time, and consciousness distorts the perception of time's passage to an extreme, so that one is caught in a kind of photographic hologram that is unchanging for all time as an artifact of consciousness. External time proceeds, but one's internal perception is drawn out in a seemingly endless period - all within fractions of a second in real time.

The author can correct me if necessary.

I do not find anything like what I would consider a "proof" of this phenomenon. Having an interest in the nature of time I find the concept intriguing, but nothing beyond rather bizarre philosophical speculation.

As for questions 1) and 2), I don't subscribe to a religious after-death existence, so I'll not comment on a possible correlation. And I don't see any value for society unless the hypothesis becomes a belief and the comforts of a supportive cult emerge.

Interesting, thanks!

You can SAY that but that goes in the face of your theory doesn't it? Firstly, you didn’t imply it was the default you explicitly said that it was what always occurs. Secondly, if it is the default there needs to be an explanation as to how our beliefs can so drastically change the experience of death. Thirdly, AFTER-death type of NEAR death experience is a contradiction. And finally, there has to be an explanation for how the NEC can be “overwritten” as you say.

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.

I'm explicitly now raising the possibility of some supernatural afterlife. — Bryon Ehlmann

It just seems weird to me that you would do that then. 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”. Then that sort of puts a whole dent in the argument. Now the theory is just incomplete unless it can explain how our beliefs alter our experience of death/the laws of physics.

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. — Bryon Ehlmann

Huh. It just seems weird to me to build up a theory off of some crucial premises then in the same paper say “But of course this is compatible with religion because my theory could be wrong though I don’t believe that”. That’s essentially what I’m hearing.

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

Then that makes the theory INCOMPATIBLE with any form of traditional afterlife. Again sounds to me like you’re saying “My theory is not incompatible with religious views because my theory could be wrong or incomplete”

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.

This seems interesting. Can you dumb this down for me a bit? Im not exactly a math person. Do you actually believe that time perception slows down seemingly infinitely just before death or is this is just interesting speculation? With regards to your post about time perception distorting near death.

Hm. I got one part down... how conciousness continues in a straight line manner after perception stops.

This makes sense.

To extrapolate this phenomenon when one falls asleep, or goes under general anesthesia, into going into death, that is, detachment from the physical world, I find unsupported in my mind, in my speculative creative thougths. But the article may say something deep that proves that the extrapolation is valid.

Please, @Bryon Ehlman, could you say in a sentence or paragraph or two what it actually is that logically enables you to claim a similar perception-consciousness structure at death as at falling asleep?

I can't give you a critical response that is worthy of reading until such time as I find the answer to this. And unfortunately my ability to read is not so vast as to read through 26 pages in order to find a specific answer to this very specfic quesiton.

------------------------

Assuming that after the life comes a state similar to being asleep or under general anesthesia, would indicate to me that in that state there is no perception, no thought, no consiousness, IF we take the example of general anesthesia (GA) as the state similar or same as the state after the life. The article rightfully mentioned that under GA the person has no memory of being in it, no perception of being in it, no conscious awareness being in it. So in a way that is how most people imagine death. Absolute nothingness for the consciousness, since either it does no longer exist, or else it goes -- accroding to your claim -- into a timeless perceptionless existence.

I ask you: if there is no difference between how some imagine death, and how we experience anesthesia, then what is the significance of the life after life? I believe your thesis is that we go into the same or similar state, as time stops, experience stops, and consciousness stops. How is it different from consciousness getting expired? This is another thing I need to know, and am too occupied otherwise to read through the article in search for its answer.

If there is no difference between loss of consciousness and an expired consciuosness for the person whose consciousness is lost or expired, then how can you or anyone else claim that it's this way or that way? Furthermore, I find it curious, until you show me otherwise, barring the reading of the entire article, that you find it so obviously true that the experience of the consciiousness IS so-and-so and NOT such-and-such (I mean, different from so-and-so, so to speak). Without any evidence reported of state of consciousness after death, any and all theories are equally suspect, and on the same level of acceptability as every other. To make a point, which I think you are making, that after the life something is definitiely so, you need more evidence than the other theories, and I am not sure if you do supply that evidence.

So it is even more important for me to know on what ground you think it's valid to claim that the experience of the conscious after the death is the same as in GA, because you need to show two things now: 1. The logical inevitabiltiy that after the life experience and GA are equivalent or nearly so; and 2. The evidence you need to supply why we should rather believe this than any other theory of consciousness as it presents after death.

To clarify my need of answers: I need to see either a logically sound argument why after the life state is the same as a state in GA (if that is an actual claim by you-- I can't even vouch for that, but you can), or else or at the same time I need you to present evidential claim that shows the same. Without either, your article is not a substantiated report or substantiated theory.

It seems obvious you didn't read the article — Bryon Ehlmann

Not sure how familiar you are with Internet forums. Very few forum users will read academic articles linked to on other platforms, especially when those platforms are not very adept at presenting text in an easily read form, which with academia is usually the case.

You'd probably have better luck at achieving engagement on forums by breaking your thesis down in to more bite size pieces and then summarizing the key propositions one at a time here on the forum.

This theory has no "evidence" for this theory in the sense that there is any reason to believe it over any other theory or any empirical evidence verifying it. It has proof in the form of logical reasoning, though I don't find it to be particularly convincing reasoning. It's an interesting hypothesis but not much more than that. See jgill's post above.

Dr Ehlmann seems to have left the room. I find it interesting that while there is some evidence here and there (and personal experience of Moi) of time "flying" the older you are - that is, if you, for instance, think five minutes have passed when fifteen minutes have gone by - Ehlmann contends the opposite: Near death (usually when old) stretches the passage of time out dramatically. You might think a day has passed when, in fact, only a microsecond has elapsed. Curious indeed. :chin:

j, I have the opposite, when I momentarily slumber. I figure 10 minutes have passed, when only 10 seconds have passed. This is at times when I am doing mezmerizing computer work that puts me to sleep, and I sleep for a short half hour.

(Kidding! In reality I sleep for 10-20 seconds, and in my sleep I perceive it as having slept for 5-10 minutes. Precise timing is hard to establish, as I don't carry a watch in my dreams. I am talking pure impressions, that is, how it "feels".)

Ehlmann contends the opposite: Near death (usually when old) stretches the passage of time out dramatically. You might think a day has passed when, in fact, only a microsecond has elapsed. Curious indeed. — jgill

I don't find it curious, as I have no personal evidence. I've almost died several times in my life, and in one such instances I passed out due to lack of oxygen in my brain and I came back some time later (period uncertain, as I had no perception of time when I was passed out.) Despite these experiences and this passing-out experience, I don't think I have ever had a near-death experience. So I have no data to rely on, in lack of evidence, to say whether time stretches or shrinks as perceived when near death.

On the other hand, perhaps I WAS near death and I experienced neither stretching nor shinkage, so there is that too.

I don't think that's what Elhmann was arguing. He wasn't arguing a slowing of time but a full stop. His argument is that since we perceive in discrete moments (maybe, most likely its a more complicated model consisting of unconscious processing that's continuous followed by conscious "moments") when we die we can't perceive a moment where we don't exist so we're left in our final moment forever. Not that time slows down but we continue to perceive a progression of moments, but that there are no more moments to perceive, leaving us in that one final moment forever, like a videogame freezing on a specific frame and never unfreezing. Not a particularly great argument but it sure is an arguement, I guess.

I don't think that's what Elhmann was arguing. He wasn't arguing a slowing of time but a full stop. — Krisaaaaeeeeeeee

Maybe so. I haven't looked at his article in a long time. Perhaps I extrapolated an infinitesimal time period from what he said since it makes a little more sense to me.

Time flies as you age . . .

Eh. Either way it's not a good theory. But yeah, he was arguing timeless from a lack of new perceptive "moments" rather than infinitely slowed time. Thus why he uses the term "timeless" so much.

Yes, from my own two different experiences, time is different there.