The mildest version of scientific anti-realism is that parrallax is a metaphorical basis of consciousness. So we could say that the basic movement of the observer in relation to the angle of the close objects to the distant objects is a theory of consciousness. However if we took it too literally then you'd have to go along with lots of other visually non-real ideas like perspective as being physical or the ground slanting upwards as a gravitational Euler force. So if we didn't want to destabilise the perception of too many people in society we could compromise on a poetically scientific form of anti-realism rather than just a mystical form of antirealism. Looking at a tree with flowery petals at night-time is a meditative way to think about anti-realism. The origin of a beautiful tree looks strange when you're not as focused on the daytime colours. Technically any single feature of the mind could be dubbed non-real when viewed from the perspective of idealism and panpsychism.

Even if divine judgement didn't exist we'd still need to control some of our angry thoughts. Personally I don't try to stop all of my flimsy aggressive thoughts in case I get analysis paralysis or some obsessive thoughtline related to my own personality. Nonetheless being privately hateful to a collective group can often betray itself in unrelated social interactions. Let's take an extreme example where if you were unloving or hateful towards Holocaust victims but never told anyone about it then you'd likely be temperamental towards your own social circle. Any instance of hate towards your friends would unconsciously seem irrelevant relative to the sheer amount of hatred you'd be holding back towards the much larger number of Holocaust victims. Thus any supernatural spirit that knew your behaviour towards others could easily infer that you must have been collectively unloving to say the very least. Anyone who was truly grateful towards every Christian country would never have the energy nor the time to be consistently rude towards friends and family. For example we can't technically judge someone who says they hate Israel relative to the complexity of their war with Palestine. Yet if someone was being deceptive and reserved a sense of apathy towards millions of Jewish WW2 victims then it will eventually show over a long period of time. If I've a rude thought then it'd likely be passive and fade over a few minutes. Although if you kept it in your unconscious belief system then you'd be hard-pressed to hide your hostility over the decades you've left in your life. That is to say an actual neo-nazi would always be expected to be cross towards many random strangers simply because of the intensity of hatred they've stored internally. They might be angry towards you only to relieve themselves from a greater amount stressful anger towards entire groups. So if we're not conforming to the demeanour of a religion then it's possible some of our private thoughts have affected our subconscious in a way we don't always understand due to the mystery of the mind. I've noticed that while I'm able to form grudges I'd be mentally exhausted if I maintained it intensely over a long period of time. Perhaps my genetic ancestry just never practiced emotional extremes of anger. So it's theoretically possible for me to infer that high levels of immediate stress from angry personal relationships could also apply to unnaturally high levels of gradual stress towards large group relations though in an unconscious way. Another strange feature of Christian genetics is that many of our ancestors were active heterosexual paedophiles simply because a 15 year old male who married a 15 year old female in 200AD was actually very unequal in education level. This intensity is an impossible standard in the modern day and so perhaps we are limited in how much we can even rebel against metaphysical belief systems.

Interpreting our visual perception as being at the back of our brain in the visual cortex might be too counterintuitive for reconciling it with our tactile perception. So a shortcut for altering our visual locus of consciosness is placing ourselves slightly behind our foreheads. Then we could be better prepared to detach our vision from our non-conscious physical eyes. When we're asleep we could almost view ourselves as being lifted upwards from the rear of our eyelids. This idea came to me in a lucid dream where my half-aware dream character tried to open his eyes and mentioned where he thought he was. After I woke up I partially closed my eyes to see if there were any remnants of the lucid dream. I saw vague outlines of a lot of dancing figurines on a kitchen table which further underscores the random cryptography of sleep.

PS This is an update over a year later on 28/12/23. It’s possible that the lucid dream might also be a warning about collective evil in history not appearing evil in the context of absurdity. For example an individual might not appear too violent just to have been angry a lot during their life where as a nation that descended into evil might not physically appear evil individually in spite of expressing far more anger indirectly through a collective.

Revisualising your country as a larger group might have serious consequences for how we view God as existing in the material world. For example if a truly federal version of the European Union was formed we might not only have better economies of scale for industries but also for collective spiritualities. Each EU country is too separate from each other for anyone to truly transcend themselves into a wider unconscious realm. Yet a European person might never be able to fully empathise with an American by failing to appreciate the differences in energy vibes. I walked by a nightclub and heard loud eurodance songs blaring only to think what would it ever be like if we took the rhythm seriously where Europe was itself a multicultural trance!

Pitbull - International Love ft. Chris Brown

It might sound very difficult for a man to reincarnate as a woman or vice versa! It's easy for a pantheist to rationalise off the existence of other countries and religions as being temporally distinct. Yet the spirituality of women is often beyond the masculine notion of pantheism! There's too much mystery to how men and women communicate each other's inner soul and unconscious self-awareness. I've just discovered that despite years of being hetersexual my knowledge of female realist perception is actually still very limited! Perhaps they're more suited to less immanent belief systems like panentheism rather than the hysterical mindset of pantheism! We cannot view a woman as a sexier version ourselves!

It's a miracle I put the past 3 posts in the anti-realism thread accidentally as they were too extreme for the pantheism thread!

If we removed hell from the equation then the only consolation of divine judgement would be if you were informed why you were declined from heaven as if you'd a right to a fair trial!

"Prosopagnosia, also known as face blindness, means you cannot recognise people's faces. Face blindness often affects people from birth and is usually a problem a person has for most or all of their life." -nhs

Oftentimes some faces are more memorable to us than other faces we meet in life. So it's theoretically possible the more ethically similar a person is to us the more our unconscious mind pays attention to their existence. If we were to imagine a dreamy version of an afterlife then who knows if we'd encounter those we remember the most. We often feel guilty for finding some people more attractive than others when we don't want to discriminate on a person's physicality. Yet mind and body are subliminally connected and so our ethical decisions could leave traces on our facial features if only we knew so many people as to make relative assessments. A scientific way to assess the existence of an afterlife would be if evil people could recognise variations of good people in the same way good people can rarely recognise the creepiness of evil people.

If we tried to form a purely materialistic version of Christianity we could say that the faith worked through perverted natural evil in terms of overpopulation. In the ancient world there were so few people that everyone could afford to live a life of metaphysical evil. So we could almost say that early Christians opted to increase the population size so as to make the Europe of Ancient Rome almost resemble India. A self-fulfilling prophecy occured over two thousands years seeing as everyone acted relative to their unconscious Christians beliefs even if they weren't fully self-aware. However the Christian ideal of forgiveness ensured an economically diverse world where a lot of people wouldn't be too poor. The huge size of the poor population meant that there'd be so much natural evil that an individual doing good or evil almost became irrelevant relative to the size of the Christian world. A plateau between good, amoral and evil people meant that the only way a pantheistic version of Christianity could be thoroughly benevolent would be through offering a wide diversity of lives in terms of reincarnation. Even evil people would be compelled to be negligibly charitable relative to the sheer amount of natural evil from deprivation. Combining fictional paedophilia and sadism in a masturbation session as a metaphysical experiment was going to send you to absolute hell by forcing you to reconcile materialism with Christianity in an absurd way. The only consolation of mass would be to transcend your existence.

Asian people don't report perceptual differences to Europeans when it comes to dreaming and perception. Yet it's possible that they're much better able to transcend themselves into a collective group. This might be relative to how much larger their populations are and how they often lack a belief in a traditional monotheistic afterlife. So someone interested in perceptual anti-realism could still learn a lot from the emotional anti-realism of collective moods in Asian countries. I'm often amazed at the uniqueness of Asian-influenced music:

Galantis & Hook N Sling - Love On Me

Being religious and subscribing to evolutionary theory could be very challenging because they're the moral inverse of each other. In some sense not only could evil people perform better due to the higher incentives but also because a lot of them really are better skilled. Yet we don't need to view this as a scathing criticism of religion from an evolutionary perspective. For example we don't have to worry about accidentally being reincarnated as an animal because evil people will always try to survive. We don't have to worry about the end of the human race to natural evil. It's beyond our scale of awareness where even if we weren't punished by God our souls would be compelled to reincarnate as animals due to a physical environment free of humans. So one less absurd way to square evolution and religion is that evil people are actually forced to be hysterical as an amoral form of mild punishment. We could say that the a historical king of France might have been so much more vigilant than any other citizen even if he wasn't innately focused. So even though he wasn't a real divine representation of God he might still have been compelled to be a great orator. Another way to think of it is that his subjects were so extorted that the king might have been neurologically greatly talented solely as a consolation to the greater levels of natural evil the rest of the citizenry had to endure. As such we shouldn't always see talent as representative of someone's inner soul and rather of their current being. Seeing a murder victim's last breath is always going to violently mind-expanding irrespective of the context. If we ever look at aristocratic paintings in posh hotels it's always apparent that the lords really were fierce in their demeanour in a way that was both sincere and superficial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait_of_Louis_XIV

The most hysterical, megalomaniacal way possible to perceive God as fully existing in the material world is if everyone viewed themselves as being both angelic and demonic. The problem is that benevolent pantheism could always be outcompeted by evil versions of pantheism if everyone went too extreme into the belief system. Thus Americanised tolerance is critical for any version of pantheism. Furthermore the far future of each religion's attitude to their faith might be incomprehensible to us. So pantheists can't burden ourselves to solve every problem with a particular religion in order to join it in our finite lifetime. That is to say we don't need to view every single belief in a faith system in a way that's compatible with pure pantheistic ethics in order to agree with the religion. For example if we disagree with the Christian notion of forgiveness in an afterlife then we could possibly say that evil people can't be objectively punished anyway. Thus forgiving a less repentant evil person might be tolerable if they'd be just as happy being unrepentant in purgatory as they would being sorry in heaven. An amoral system can always beat an immoral system by outnumbering it. So if we viewed each religion as being amoral then we still need to be moral relative to a physical environment where most people are already religious.

LOTR The Return of the King - Oaths Fulfilled - Army of the Dead

If we were anatomists handling a dead person's removed brain then our sense of touch of their neurons on our hands are internal to ourselves. As such if we viewed the redness of their brain as being visually internal to us then we could have the same attitude to their tactile existence. So we'd be left to conclude that their formor sentience existed in a completely different spatio-temporal realm to our own perception of them. If we viewed invisible light as having been their consciousness then the visual neurons in the very back of their brain are looking out on neuronal sensory systems in the front of the brain that don't reflect a unified 3D environment. Then we'd be forced to conclude their sense of time wasn't real for the visual neurons to have reconnected in real time with the other isolated neuronal sensory patterns.

"Excerebration is an ancient Egyptian mummification procedure of removal of the brain from corpses prior to actual embalming." wiki

If we don't take our life too seriously then it might be easier to deal with death. Yet to do that means we couldn't be very loving to our friends and family either seeing as we'd miss them too much. Perhaps expecting to continue your marriage in heaven could make it harder to ever leave heaven. Maybe we'd have to pick a different romantic partner in heaven to prepare us for reincarnation if we were only expecting a brief afterlife. After all many people are already struggling to stay in their marriage until death do them part besides having an eternal marriage!

One way to think of your vision as existing in your brain is like a rainbow. A rainbow refracts white light into the coloured spectrum. However it primarily works through reflection seeing as the Sun is behind us when we look at a rainbow. I remember going to a physics interview in Imperial College London where I made a mistake about the sun being behind the rainbow. I was very quiet with an extroverted professor after failing another university's confrontational interview. These contrasting interviews create hysteria beyond hysteria where to pass you've to be ready for mathematical death stares and light-hearted humour! So when we see coloured objects we could view them as being reflected behind our eyes and into our locus of consciousness.

"A rainbow does not have a back side. If you were to walk completely to the other side of the mist cloud that is creating the rainbow and turn around, you would not see a rainbow. You have to realize that a rainbow is not a stationary physical object. Instead, it is a pattern of light that becomes a stable image only when you look at it from the right angle. You may not have noticed it, but every time you look directly at the center of a rainbow, the sun is directly behind your head."
https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2016/07/03/does-the-back-of-a-rainbow-look-the-same-as-its-front-side/

Anyone worried about death can rehearse with Sean Bean; the self-righteous actor everyone wants to kill!

Sean Bean Death Scene Compilation 1986-2016

I think if there is a true afterlife it is akin to some sort of great unveiling/revelation - a profound and all encompassing dramatic change in perspective, a regression to some fundamental "dreamy" immaterial state that puts ones life into direct relationship/full perspective - all things considered. — Benj96

Most people these days probably woudn't consider being dragged by a horse-drawn chariot along a tranquil Mediterranean beach to be a shameful funeral. After all you'd already be dead where the alternatives are to be naturally decomposed or artificially cremated! The irony is the more painful the death the greater the martyrdom!

Achilles' preface: "There are no pacts between lions and men... You won't have eyes tonight. You won't have ears nor a tongue. You will wonder the afterlife blind, deaf and dumb and all the dead will know this is Hector; the fool who thought he killed Achilles."
Troy Achilles vs Hector Fight Scene

The minute they did of course they fulfilled his prophecy of martyrdom. And instilled the belief that indeed he could, supposedly inhumanly, see the future and was omniscient. He was after death legacied as god incarnate. — Benj96

If there is an afterlife my initial guess would be as a shared mental realm where every soul would be dreamy. Some people believe in a more physical version of an afterlife where it'd have perfect schools and homes. I'd never dispute another person's spiritual beliefs seeing as death is scary enough as it already is. Yet I'd personally struggle with a solidified version of heaven seeing as it might require a parallel universe which some may find a bit disorienting.

But adults do not have all the answers, while childhood does not require answers in the first place. The change between the two is arguable in most need of spiritual support but at the same time is the most difficult stage to apply such support. — Benj96

One way to view a prophet like Jesus or Buddha is that they were democratically elected as God. For example early Christians voted for Jesus simply by converting to Christianity. When we view Jesus as a spirit rather than a human then it can be harder to visualise Him because the physical universe is almost incomprehensible. If Jesus was God in the sense of a creator of the natural world then it implies that our understanding of Jesus would have to be expanded exponentially in an afterlife. So calling Jesus the Son of God might be a self-fulfilling prophecy in relation to your own sphere of the world. After all each democracy can vote in a different president much like each major religion espouses a different God. Applying Christian values to a democracy can be challenging when there are simultaneous problems confronting society as a whole. For example it's rewarding to be forgiving individually. Yet when a court gives a suspended sentence it can be tempting to feel aggrieved simply because we often don't trust the government on other issues like poor infrastructure. In other words all judges are doomed to have some conflicts of interests simply by having a residual level of emotionality. Thus we are effectively multitasking in dealing with lots of harms where stress can be compounded.

A secular interpretation of religion is as a realpolitik version of spirituality. So people with unique metaphysical beliefs can compromise some of their principles in the name of pragmatism and deference to the group. A trouble is that religious people can be so passionate in their faith that they can disagree quite strongly with one another. So pantheism could also be viewed as a temporary religion for those who still want to return to their faith in the distant future. For example Catholicism makes a great effort in sermons for children and adults but tends to overlook the adolescent years. Perhaps teenagers are seen as too temperamental. However our teenage years can be very fundamental in how we view ourselves later in life. Consequently relying on parents to bring teens to mass rather than to appeal to them directly might be too much of a gamble if they don't return to their faith when they're elderly.

If you didn't believe in a shared afterlife then perhaps it's still possible to hope for a memory reel of your past life at death. Or perhaps if your soul hears prayers after death then the more you agree to them the more you'll see a symbolic representation of an afterlife.

Reeling In The Years Add | RTÉ

A physicalist interpretation of the Christian doctrine of total forgiveness is that in forgiving a repentant person you're also helping to reassure those who've forgiven others. So there'll invariably be lots of people who can't afford to be retaliatory simply because they're deprived. Thus some people have no choice but to be forgiving simply because they can't physically act on a grudge even if they wanted to. So trying to help other forgiving people by being forgiving yourself might be imperfect if you're not forgiving the repentant person directly.

We could say that poor people who are under far more pressure than middle-class people can be viewed as more virtuous simply be resisting the temptations of evil. Christianity implies that wealth is a sin but this can also be reversed to say poor people who withstood natural and human evil can simply be rewarded more than rich people in an afterlife.

An alternative way to view dualism is that our skeletal system is unfeeling and that our sense of body exists only in the muscles. This bodily dualism contrasts with brain dualism in that if we felt the skeleton directly we'd feel much heavier.

One way to view lucid dreaming is that the light we see during the day has slowed down considerable. Then our mind moves faster than a slowed down speed of light when we flick past visual scenes during sleep. The speed of light is variable relative to our own dreaming mind but not between people in the physical world. The speed of light is the speed of gravity. Yet we don't feel gravity when we're asleep since we're paralysed. Thus if gravity is reduced then perhaps the speed of light is reduced internally.

"We consider the special case in which there is no interaction inside the closed timelike curve, referred to as an open timelike curve (OTC), for which the only local effect is to increase the time elapsed by a clock carried by the system. Remarkably, circuits with access to OTCs are shown to violate Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, allowing perfect state discrimination and perfect cloning of coherent states. The model is extended to wave packets and smoothly recovers standard quantum mechanics in an appropriate physical limit. The analogy with general relativistic time dilation suggests that OTCs provide a novel alternative to existing proposals for the behavior of quantum systems under gravity."
journals aps org

If Christians were duty bound to forgive others in the afterlife then the primary countermeasure against evil might be vigilance in the material world. If we'd to rule out vengeance and supernatural hell then we'd have to ensure that all of our dependents were as safe as possible. We might need to be slightly more defensive and pre-emptive in our spiritual outlook against criminals. If anyone looked creepy then we'd be forced to either avoid the person or be polite to them and help them avoid being tempted into evil. If poor people weren't as heavily rewarded in heaven due to materialism then the middle-class might feel more responsibility to help them enjoy life to the fullest through charity. Christianity often looks like a world policeman as if it were a superpower like America. However Christians tend to help fellow Christians more than helping those from other faiths and so their level of objectivity might not be as absolute as a scientific afterlife.

My blog isn't exceptional at any single thread but is very good only in how it combines a lot of good threads. Perhaps I'd need to describe one thread in more detail so as to have a thorough thread like anti-realism. What if Michael actually thought the thoughts in his inner mind were sometimes connected to the airflow through his throat and nose? So what I might have to say is simply that air can involuntarily activate the voicebox when you focus on it intensely and impersonally. Then every breath is capable of producing rapid thoughts if you interpret a muffling sound in a way that makes sense to you. Then your thoughts would be faster than natural and dependent on your breathing rate. Every breath would interrupt your thinking and accelerate them afterwards.

One reason it's easy to be confused about Christianity is that we're forced to ignore large swathes of its militant history. For example it's easy to ignore the period of early Christianity to the early 20th century. What's particulary annoying is that some colonial Christians might even have appeared more devout in their faith despite their immorality compared to modern Christians. Perhaps a mitigating factor is that many conquistadors and aristocrats were motivated by nationalism rather than religion. In other words religion may well have been fig leaves for medieval crimes like the inquisition of Protestants in regal Europe. Another criticism of Christianity is its temperamental attitude towards feminism. You might say that this is mirrored in the very concept of asexuality among Catholic clergy. It can be an ambiguous gesture of not wanting to be bossy towards women or else it could imply a dislike of women for their romance. One way to view the historical crimes of Christianity is through moral relativism. In other words the way they took Christianity as the absolute truth was itself a relativistic gesture towards non-Christians.

John Wick Scene: Little Russian Church

One way to understand the extreme complexity of the brain would be as of each neuron could be quickly pressed twice for a different command. This would be like a video game controller where pressing a button twice can activate a different movement compared to the first push. Then the brain could look multiple times more complex then it already is!

I'd a dream a few months ago in which I was travelling around an Indian city for a tennis tournament. I was confused by various return flights and tried to get buses back into the city. It was just a short dream but I never fully related pantheism to Hinduism simply because they seemed like polar opposites. Hinduism was nominally polytheistic but seemed to concede that each of their Gods were all manifestations of an ultimate God named Brahman. One way to relate this to pantheistic logic is that each polytheistic God was an unconscious dream of the conscious God Brahman. Although my interpretation of Hinduism is a mere metaphor! In one sense Hinduism is the only major religion that has shamanic components. Yet they still interpret such mysticism in a holistic way.

One way we could interpret hell is that God might not throw anyone there directly. Yet if a God knows everything about the inner workings of a person then perhaps He'd simply force them to be truly sorry. So if the person can't emotionally engage in remorse then perhaps they'd put themselves in hell until they were better able to repent. An afterlife might always be difficult to describe in material logic given the absurdity of evil. Yet every form of evil is countered by another form of evil. For example let's take the example of war rape. A male misogynist would end up being engaged in vicarious misandry when we apply a hatred of women to wives that aren't theirs.

Keeping your thoughts pure is often an important component in religions. Perhaps from a moral perspective the only redeeming factor of perversion is that it directly exposes an already overconfident and bad mindset. For example a truly self-secure mindset would never try to form perverted thoughts to feel even more confident. So those who are vulnerable to such vices likely have previous flaws in how they regulate their subconscious emotions. In order to resist perversion you'd need to first assess your thought patterns. An absurd version of happiness might only expose an absurdity in how we unconsciously view ourselves.

One way to tame a fear in reincarnation is that our unconscious mind might need an affinity for the unconscious being in our next life. So we might not be completely different to the person in our next life even though there might be a wide spectrum of disagreement. Perhaps if there's a vocal pantheist in Scotland in 100 years time then you never know if that was me!

One way we could assess the language of ancient religious texts is through amnesia. For example most amnesiac patients can't speak coherently because they're not sef-aware. Yet people who are fully absorbed into the present moment and can control their thoughts through spirituality could technically be dubbed amnesiac. Perhaps ancient generations had far more control over their unconscious minds without exactly interpreting experiences as dreamy.

A trouble with emotional versions of anti-realism is that natural scenery could produce subjective happiness on a wider spectrum than consciously possible. That is to say our subconscious isn't geared to reward scenery like fields of flowers with intense hedonism. We're simply unable to enjoy our own nature spirits to their fullest given the complexity of the natural world.

Perhaps to fully understand our own mind we'd nearly be so dissociated as to be dead! Maybe the mind could be viewed as existing outside our perception of the physical world rather than just the brain.

Perhaps heaven is much like flying away from your body; the better behaved you were the higher you go! Or maybe Christianity developed primarily to fight against evil rather than to create an afterlife.

An amoral God is neither good nor evil. Thus an amoral God that sent you to hell would be unlikely to throw you away for a very long time simply because He wouldn't be evil. An amoral God might resemble a rich capitalist or an impersonal spirit so to speak. An advantage of such a passive God is that evil people could be ignored as natural evil. After all evil isn't a concept in physics. For example we don't expect anyone to go to jail if we have a tummy bug even if it's just as painful as a robbery. However an amoral God might be beyond our comprehension given the infinities of infinities!

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) 4K HDR - The Bridge of Khazad-dûm

Religion doesn't actually have to present detailed arguments to compete with a post-grad maths book. Religion merely needs to present analytical arguments to compete with secondary school science books to persuade youngsters! We'll probably be bogged down by mysteries all our life but some of our beliefs are hardened before we reach maturity.

Yes they both explain with different methods but they can both approach the actual Truth (existence/universe) as it actually is without bias and contradictions between selves. — Benj96

Evil people can have extremely violent mindsets but they often don't blaspheme simply because they're not aware of God. Yet if evil people wanted to have violent self-talk towards God then there's not much that could stop them. In other words the fact that some of them don't blaspheme during their life might be an accident. So if evil people are capable of being forgiven in the afterlife then both deeds and faith would be relevant.