I recently came across an article by Robert Lanza and Bob Berman, proponents of the "biocentric" theory presented in their book Beyond Biocentrism: Rethinking Time, Space, Consciousness, and the Illusion of Death.
The article, "There is no death, only a series of eternal ‘nows’," argues that
biocentrism, in which life and consciousness create the reality around them, has no space for death ... [E]verything we see and experience is a whirl of information occurring in our head ...
Of course, as you’re reading this, you’re experiencing a ‘now’. But consider: from your great-grandmother’s perspective, your nows exist in her future and her great-grandmother’s nows exist in her past. The words ‘past’ and ‘future’ are just ideas relative to each individual observer.
So what happened to your great-grandmother after she died? To start with – since time doesn’t exist – there is no ‘after death’, except the death of her physical body in your now. Since everything is just nows, there is no absolute space/time matrix for her energy to dissipate – it’s simply impossible for her to have ‘gone’ anywhere.
Think of it like one of those old phonographs. The information on the record is turned into a three-dimensional reality that we can experience a moment at a time. All the other information on the record exists as potential. Any causal history leading up to the ‘now’ being experienced can be thought of as the ‘past’ (ie, the songs that played before wherever the needle is), and any events that follow occur in the ‘future’; these parallel nows are said to be in superposition. Likewise, the before-death state, including your current life with its memories, goes back into superposition, into the part of the record that represents just information.
In short, death does not actually exist ... And if death and time are illusions, so too is the continuity in the connection of nows.
The model is interesting, but I think at a certain point it fails. If we assume that the needle of the phonograph corresponds to consciousness, then presumably death corresponds to the moment when the needle is lifted off the record. But at that point the needle no longer can play any tracks on the record. Yes, the information encoded in the grooves remains, but it is inaccessible to consciousness. It might be seen as a store of information akin to the Akashic Records, but it would not be part of a dynamic, living personality.
At least, this is how I read it. It's possible, however, that I've misunderstood what the authors are saying. as best I can tell, if your life "goes back into superposition, into the part of the record that represents just information," then "you" are not actualized and, as such, "you" do not exist.
A more complicated but perhaps slightly more satisfactory model occurs to me. It involves holography. (Somewhere, Art is cheering.)
Image from Phys.org.
A holographic plate consists of wave-interference patterns that encode the information necessary to generate a three-dimensional image. Such a plate can be either reflective or transparent. A beam of focused light reflects off the plate or passes through it, creating, in either case, a three-dimensional projection. For our purposes, let's imagine that the plate is transparent.
The projection is fully three-dimensional, a fact that a spectator can appreciate only by circling around the image. From any given vantage point, only part of the image – one narrow slice of it, so to speak – can be seen. To take in the entire image, one must move around it, seeing first one side, then the front, then the other side.
Now let's say that this three-dimensional image corresponds to the entire content of the spacetime universe. And let's say that the spectator slowly making his way around the image and taking it in bit by bit in sequential fashion is egoic consciousness. What, then, is the beam of focused light? I suggest it can be analogized to the higher self, the larger consciousness of which the ego is only a small fragment or offshoot.
The higher self converts raw information into rendered images (using the word image in the broad sense to include objects that can be felt, smelled, tasted, etc.). The higher self sees the entire panoply of images as a single whole; the focused light of its consciousness pervades the entire spectrum of information, illuminating all of it. The egoic self, in contrast, perceives the hologram from one particular angle at any given moment; its movement along the axis of time creates the impression of change, as each new slice of (rendered) information comes into view and previously observed information moves out of view. The ego's point of view is narrow and limited, while the point of view of the higher self is omniscient, at least as far as the spacetime cosmos is concerned.
This is how things usually work, but occasionally the ego gets a glimpse of the bigger picture. In bursts of inspiration known as "cosmic consciousness," or in certain kinds of drug-induced visions, or in near-death experiences, or in death itself, the ego is – temporarily and partially – merged with the higher self. From this vantage point, the ego perceives the whole spectrum of rendered information all at once. The experience is overwhelming. It can be described as seeing the world from God's point of view, seeing and knowing everything there is, bursting free from the limitations of time and space, leaving Flatland to enter a higher-dimensional realm, etc. It can also be described as a "life review," in which all the events of one's life are reexperienced either simultaneously or nearly so.
In all cases other than actual death, the ego soon detaches from the higher self and is left once more with its familiar narrow perspective. But the memory of the transcendent experience never completely fades. It can provide the impetus for personal growth, religious or spiritual innovations, and even the development of psychic powers.
In death, the aftermath is less clear. Some would say that the ego simply dissolves into the higher self, while others would say that the ego detaches and continues its progress in an illusory replica of the spacetime world. The Tibetan Book of the Dead, among other sources, seems to suggest that the newly dead person can, with an effort of will, maintain the ego's merger with the higher self, but in the absence of this will (and the highly cultivated self-awareness it entails), the ego will inevitably retrogress. This opinion seems to be seconded by many channeled communications stating that the earthlike realms of the afterlife are ultimately illusions that must be transcended, and that the ego is progressively sloughed off as spiritual evolution proceeds. It is also borne out by the many postmortem communications strongly suggesting the persistence of the individual personality.
The end result, in either case, would be the (immediate or eventual) immersion of the ego in the higher self, which, standing outside time and space, is indestructible and self-contained. This would seem to be the ultimate destiny toward which we are all striving.
That's not to say that the higher self known to us is all that exists. It may well be the case – in fact, I suspect it is – that there are many higher selves, and that they ultimately comprise all of the consciousness there is; the sum total would be akin to what we call God, and the awareness of all these higher selves together would encompass many planes of reality, not just our physical plane.
@ Michael Vann:
On Tart's Taste Archive there's a story involving dreams - a guy visited by his dead wife with a third psychopomp type figure:
http://anti-matters.org/articles/141/public/141-246-1-PB.pdf
"During this whole interaction I was aware of someone else in another corner of the room where Rene and I met. A man who seemed to be there to help Rene do what she wanted to do (see me) and make sure that everything went as it should.
He never spoke or communicated in any way but I sensed he was there to help her in some way unknown to me. In thinking about the presence of this other person I have the idea that his function was to insure that I did not remember some of the things that Rene and I discussed. I know we talked about the kids and loving each other. I am also sure that I would have had a million questions about what it was like to be dead. However, I do not remember any of the content of our discussion and that is not like me.
In some way, completely unknown to me, this other person had the ability to make sure that Rene and I could get together and that I would take away from that meeting only the information presented here."
Posted by: SPatel | May 13, 2016 at 10:38 AM
Michael, Michael, Michael... you don't for one second get it, do you? Trump doesn't believe Obama faked his birth certificate. He doesn't believe ANYTHING about Obama's birth certificate. He wanted to set up a future run for the presidency, and he said what he needed to get himself conservative street cred and to raise awareness of himself as a conservative muckraker for future use.
Maybe you call this unscrupulous. I call it "running for president." If America wasn't going to elect a conman president, the frontrunners wouldn't be Trump and Hillary. So WHICH conman president is the question, and I think it's one that matters.
You should check out Scott Adams (Dilbert author) blog series on Trump as a Master Persuader. Interestingly enough, his first formulation of the concept, seen throughout last year, was Trump as a Master Wizard. I think you would benefit greatly from an expanded perspective *wink wink* on what Trump is doing; how; and why.
Posted by: Dammerung | May 13, 2016 at 01:07 PM
Dammerung wrote, "You should check out Scott Adams (Dilbert author) blog series on Trump as a Master Persuader."
I read a couple of his posts last fall. But I think he overestimates Trump. I don't see Trump as a brilliant strategist. I see him as a rather stupid man who tells obvious lies but does so with the conviction of a true sociopath.
A brilliant strategist wouldn't keep forgetting which lies he's told and thereby contradicting himself, nor would he keep creating unnecessary problems for his campaign – such as when he tied himself up in knots trying to decide whether or not women who get abortions should be punished by law, or when he failed to disavow David Duke, the KKK, and white supremacists on national television.
Basically, I just have a very low opinion of Trump in all respects. To the extent that he has any strategy, he's appealing to the alt-right crowd, who want to emulate Marine Le Pen's white nationalist party in France. He is not a conservative in the traditional American sense; he's more like the populist Know Nothings of the mid-19th century. Wikipedia describes the Know Nothings this way:
"The movement arose in response to an influx of migrants and promised to 'purify' American politics by limiting or ending the influence of Irish Catholics and other immigrants, thus reflecting nativist and anti-Catholic sentiment. It was empowered by popular fears that the country was being overwhelmed by German and Irish Catholic immigrants, whom they saw as hostile to republican values and as being controlled by the Pope in Rome. Mainly active from 1854 to 1856, the movement strove to curb immigration and naturalization but met with little success."
I'm not an admirer of Hillary Clinton, but I expect to vote for her because, unlike Trump, she is not openly appealing to nativism and racism and because, again unlike Trump, she appears to be sane.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | May 13, 2016 at 05:03 PM
Trump is 17 and 0 on stumping career politicians, and you're still insisting on underestimating him? This is how he slides into the White House virtually unopposed.
Hillary is too incompetent to mount an effective political campaign. Trump's fans at /r/The_Donald reshare every one of her attack videos with their undecided friends, because Hillary is so completely stupid that her ads are virtually indistinguishable from pro-Trump propaganda. Or that "brilliant" ad taken out by the Economist that was supposed to say Don'Trump but was had to be read three times before you realized that it was an anti-Trump and not a pro-Trump ad. You are busy telling yourself the story you want to hear instead of the story that's playing out right in front of you. That's why Trump will win, there's just no effective strategy to stop him and everybody who thinks they're too smart to be fooled by Trump is unwittingly spreading his message.
Posted by: Dammerung | May 13, 2016 at 05:13 PM
Time will tell, Dammerung. I think Trump's appeal is intense but narrow. His fans love him, but most people strongly dislike him. All national polls bear this out. He had enough support to (apparently) clinch the GOP nomination in a crowded field by appealing to about 40% of the primary voters. To win in November he will need 50% +1 across a much broader spectrum of voters.
People who argue that because Trump got the nomination, he's sure to win the election ought to talk to Presidents Goldwater, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry, McCain, and Romney, all of whom won the nomination of their party. Winning the nomination, especially when running a controversial insurgent campaign a la Goldwater or McGovern, is sometimes accomplished at the price of turning off the larger electorate and guaranteeing a general election defeat.
Trump's admirers see him as an Ubermensch who can easily brush aside all obstacles. I see him as an overgrown baby who conned gullible voters with a huckster's vacuous patter, and who is unlikely to survive the barrage of negative revelations when the media turn against him.
To me, the Trump strategy for November is like the Underpants Gnomes' strategy for profit:
Step 1. Win the nomination while alienating most of the country.
Step 2. ?
Step 3. Victory!
But I could be wrong. There have been so many surprises this year, I have to assume there are a few more in store. Stay tuned!
Posted by: Michael Prescott | May 13, 2016 at 07:35 PM
Actually, I think Trump is using something very much like magic to win his campaign. That's directly relevant to the subject of this blog, right? There's no way to "prove" to you that Trump is a very brilliant, very conniving, very motivated wizard. But anybody who looks out how careful he is will find themselves hard pressed to describe it all as mere coincidence. Do you think it was a coincidence that his taco bowl tweet had, in one corner, a picture of his ex-wife in a swimsuit? I submit to you that there's no coincidence at all. It was a programmed trigger designed to get more airtime with a calculated misdirection.
The skeptic determined to remain skeptical will never run out of justifications for his disbelief, long after everything has already been clearly explained.
Let me provide you with a concrete example. Just by being willing to publish my posts! (because I submit to you that you're actually a pretty good guy) you're inadvertently advertising pro-Trump propaganda. The very propaganda you assumed you were too smart to be tricked by. Choosing to reference /r/The_Donald was no accident, it was a very calculated strategy on my part to raise awareness of the biggest pro-Trump community on the Internet. This is just one small example of how Trump can turn even die-hard haters that will never support him into sounding boards for his agenda. And I of course am merely a humble executor of his agenda.
It's like those magicians who can perform tricks so clever that they're indistinguishable from magic. Sometimes the real thing is that which is hiding in plain sight.
Posted by: Dammerung | May 13, 2016 at 08:39 PM
Dammerung:
The incompetence of the Democrats is startling. As a friend of mine once quipped they have a penchant for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. ;-)
On the election...I've been listening to a lot of magick related podcasts, specifically Gordon White talking about the influence of spirits in history. Eric Weiss has also talked about the interlocked "subtle worlds" that make up our own, and how we should work to differentiate our own thoughts from the voices of the spirits. I also recall The Siren Call of Hungry Ghosts, and one reader suggesting these vampiric spirits were behind the world's religions in order to feed off the suffering they create...
The kind of spooky stuff that makes one want to shift to the skeptical side! I don't want shift responsibility for all humanity's bad actions to a spirit world, or open the door for fanatics (whether pro or anti religion) to step in and justify their bigotries, but it does seem that once we accept a spirit world we have to ask whether that world also has its cheats, its predators, and amoral deal makers.
Posted by: SPatel | May 13, 2016 at 09:16 PM
"Actually, I think Trump is using something very much like magic to win his campaign. That's directly relevant to the subject of this blog, right?"
Well, not really. We're not much into magic (or magick) around here. Or at least I'm not. I don't think I've ever done a post on it.
But I think we can both agree that Trump will need magic to win in November!
Posted by: Michael Prescott | May 13, 2016 at 11:49 PM
Dammerung wrote,
||Actually, I think Trump is using something very much like magic to win his campaign.||
I define magic as "ritualized intention," and I think we're using it all the time. So I would agree, and Trump may indeed be good at using ritual at his rallies and other things to affect people.
||There's no way to "prove" to you that Trump is a very brilliant, very conniving, very motivated wizard. But anybody who looks out how careful he is will find themselves hard pressed to describe it all as mere coincidence.||
He has been successful in real estate (though he started with a huge inheritance as a head start), and he has been successful in reality TV. I think he is skilled at communicating and convincing certain types of people under certain circumstances. I don't think there's really any doubt about that. But the question he faces now is whether he is skilled at communicating with and convincing enough people to win the election. I think he is not.
Why? Because his methods turn more people off than on. That works great in reality TV, for example. You *want* to divide people passionately, win both lovers and haters. It doesn't work so well in politics, in which one must triangulate between advocating a distinctive position while maintaining general appeal.
||Do you think it was a coincidence that his taco bowl tweet had, in one corner, a picture of his ex-wife in a swimsuit? I submit to you that there's no coincidence at all. It was a programmed trigger designed to get more airtime with a calculated misdirection.||
He does some crazy stuff, it is true, that works to his advantage with certain types of people. But Trump also lacks self-control, says incredibly stupid things, and makes lots of unforced errors. The idea that he is brilliantly calculating every word and gesture doesn't hold water, IMO.
||The skeptic determined to remain skeptical will never run out of justifications for his disbelief, long after everything has already been clearly explained.||
Is it really a matter of believing and disbelieving? The election comes down to how much people like him and want him as POTUS. I don't need to disbelieve in his skills in order to disbelieve that he will not earn the requisite number of electoral votes.
||This is just one small example of how Trump can turn even die-hard haters that will never support him into sounding boards for his agenda. And I of course am merely a humble executor of his agenda.||
One of his skills is definitely getting media attention. He's *not* boring! Every day I go out of my way to read articles about him, especially on redstate.com. It is actually heartening to see Conservatives take a stand against this guy. My my interest will not translate into a vote.
||It's like those magicians who can perform tricks so clever that they're indistinguishable from magic. Sometimes the real thing is that which is hiding in plain sight.||
I do believe that, with Trump, what you see is pretty much what you get. He is an idiot savant of the media circus. To call him an idiot is not to deny his genuine skills getting people into the tent to see the freak show. That is why he is often called a carnival barker.
Posted by: Matt Rouge | May 14, 2016 at 07:40 PM
Michael, re your question to me, who is that face shifting person a la the Raider of the Lost Arc:
Hillary's sensible, civilised and personable appearance is a fact - along with the fact that there is a veritable trail of corpses of people who have trusted her. It stretches from the time of Whitewater, via victims of her policies in her electorate, to the Libyan affairs. And, beyond that, she's badly treated many of her close assistants, or so one can read in some of the recent books about her.
In these times, after so many political betrayals, there is little reason to trust anything any candidate for high office pledges to do after an election win.
~
Echoing the blog entry's title The part and the whole, and following the blog's broad view on science, here is an intriguing nugget about how we learn:
"For the past several years, I have addressed the entire entering class at my university on how to study effectively, ..... In this demonstration, I manipulate the level of processing using orienting tasks. Students listen to a list of words. For each word, they carry out an orienting task that creates either deep or shallow processing. One group rates the pleasantness of each word (“Is the word pleasant?”), an orienting task that leads to deep semantic processing, Another group checks each word for the presence of an E or G (“Does the word contain an E or G?”), an orienting task that causes shallow processing. After completing the list, the students are asked to recall all the words. The group that did pleasantness ratings, the deeper processing orienting task, virtually always remembers strikingly more words."
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2010/april-10/improving-classroom-performance-by-challenging-student-misconceptions-about-learning.html
Insofar this finding about memorisation is a part of a wider truth about learning in general, we as political analysts are doing well exactly by focusing on our likes and dislikes of Trump, et al.
Posted by: JR | May 15, 2016 at 11:11 AM
Just my two cents, but various financial analysts state that Trump would have made more money investing the millions in index funds rather than indulging in various hare-brained business schemes over the years (Trump Steaks, Trump University), etc. That seems to show quite a bit about his intelligence. He's interesting to me only as a psychological case study, i.e., how to raise a sexist narcissist. His father, for instance, said to him once: "You are a king." BTW, the basis of the Trump fortune was said to have been created by his grandMOTHER with a small real estate business in New York.
Posted by: Kathleen | May 15, 2016 at 05:55 PM
I have autism and it doesn't have a damn thing to do with vaccines: http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452
More to the point, even if it did cause autism, you can't really argue that they don't prevent lethal diseases. Would you honestly prefer to have a dead child than a slightly odd one? And before you start arguing about low-functioning autistics, let me tell you about a lovely lady and her partner whose blog I sometimes read. The blogger is completely nonverbal and can't comprehend spoken language at all, and her bladder and bowel control are poor because she's so easily distracted she forgets she needs to go. Her partner can speak but struggles with pronouns and has a terrible speech impediment, and her skin is so sensitive she cannot wear clothes for anything but very short periods. Both of them are perfectly sane and intelligent people and can communicate perfectly well by writing. The blogger is more eloquent than I am, writes some lovely short stories and long discussions of her experiences with her autism, and holds down a good programming job with some allowances made for her disabilities (I think she works from home). The partner was able to nurse her through six months of rehab for a serious injury and her hobby is emailing physics professors to critique string theory. Both are quite happy to be alive and be who they are, because the people around them learned to talk to them instead of assuming they were too stupid and helpless to bother.
Posted by: chel | June 29, 2016 at 08:20 AM