Note that, despite the potential implications of the word "naturalistic" in this essay's title, I don't subscribe to the view of physicalism, a.k.a. materialism. In fact, I've provided several arguments against it in another essay on my site (linked in the description above). My reason for providing a pair of afterlife hypotheses that could be true even under physicalism is simply that there are already _countless_ arguments for the possibility of an afterlife that assume more "spiritual" or anti-materialistic premises. And yet, no matter whether these anti-materialistic arguments are valid, they aren't likely to be taken seriously by someone who's a convinced physicalist. I believe that either of my two hypotheses here can't be dismissed so readily no matter what ontology one believes in, as long as they actually grasp what's being conveyed.
1. 0:09 Logically, _anything_ is compatible with a view that is already inconsistent in itself by force of the _ex falso quodlibet_ . There is no need to be artful in thinking of something profound here. A married batchelor or _"genocide is good for all concerned"_ is totally compatible with materialism. 2. I don't see how the mere fact that Generic Subjective Continuity has a universal _quality_ would lead a materialist to view this as "immortality" any more than greenness being elsewhere than in a dying plant would make the green of that plant even relatively immortal.
_"Logically, anything is compatible with a view that is already inconsistent in itself by force of the_ ex falso quodlibet." I hear you. But I don't think the inherent inconsistency or untenability of materialism affects the potential truth value of GSC. The point I was making in saying it _"could be true under materialism"_ is that a materialist shouldn't be able to dismiss GSC on the grounds that it either favors idealism or is anti-materialistic, since neither is the case in principle. _"I don't see how the mere fact that Generic Subjective Continuity has a universal_ quality _would lead a materialist to view this as 'immortality'"..._ This is a good and relevant point that I'm glad you brought up, as it's something I've actually encountered among not just materialists, but idealists as well. That is, since the way most people conceive of immortality is everlasting perpetuation of their familiar narrative stream, they don't see how any brand of "generic continuity" would qualify. But as I see it, this always comes down to a failure to truly grasp how this principle relates to the "familiar narrative stream" of their current life. To wit: a) we all _feel_ at some subconscious level as if we've more or less always been here as this current experiencer, despite intellectually "knowing" that our biography has a calendar beginning; b) our life _feels_ no less valuable and precious even though we can't remember having ever lived another life; and c) we don't and can't experience nothing or nonbeing, whether putatively before this life, speculatively after this life, or as lacunae during this life (e.g., sleep and general anesthesia). The premise of GSC is that a), b), and c) are, effectively, always the case, and as such, should/would fully satisfy the underlying _need_ behind the naïve conception of immortality desired by many people, if only they actually grokked it.
@@_PL_ _"I don't think the inherent inconsistency or untenability of materialism affects the potential truth value of GSC."_ I trust you understood that I didn't say that either, only that the compatibility is logically trivial. _"The point I was making in saying it "could be true under materialism" is that a materialist shouldn't be able to dismiss GSC on the grounds that it either favors idealism or is anti-materialistic, since neither is the case in principle."_ I don't think a materialist would even muster sufficient intelligence to feel obligated to think things through to that depth. He'll just dismiss it regardless until an alien passes through his bedroom wall because he needs the money of the establishment to pay some thot for faking her love for him. Until that day he'll simply consider you stupid, inspired by his own stupidity. _"The premise of GSC is that a), b), and c) are, effectively, always the case, and as such, should/would fully satisfy the underlying need behind the naïve conception of immortality desired by many people, if only they actually grokked it."_ That's exactly the mature idea of immortality: it is the light of immortality itself being reflected off states of subject/object that is immortal, not any particular conditioned subject which ceases to exist from moment to moment. In this way "we" live on or not in the same sense we live on or not from moment to moment, except not in the conditioned state we anticipate, to put it really, really mildly. However, all this will be lost on our materialist simp since all he cares about is that he remembers yesterday, but not the birth of our solar system and so he dismisses the topic on pragmatic grounds.
@@TheSoteriologist _"I trust you understood that I didn't say that either, only that the compatibility is logically trivial."_ Yes, I get that. I was probably inadvertently talking past your point because I hadn't meant to emphasize the matter of compatibility in the first place, but more the irrelevance of ontological orientation. My statement of compatibility was just meant to get the attention of the materialist listener/reader, that's all. _"He'll just dismiss it regardless... Until that day he'll simply consider you stupid, inspired by his own stupidity."_ LOL, understood and agreed! From many years of observation and experience in these exchanges, I have no illusions that anything I say on this topic will be likely to give serious pause to the average materialist. But, since I think that one strong appeal of materialism for many of its believers is the assumption that it means this present life and all its suffering and uncertainty is a "one and done" affair, and as such, ironically serves a comparable wish-fulfillment function for them as what heaven does for religious folk, I just want to go on record as showing how even their ass-backward ontology doesn't protect them from the fundamental unknowns of eternity. If they don't have ears to hear or eyes to see, that's not my problem. The message will be there for those who are able to get its drift. _"...it is the light of immortality itself being reflected off states of subject/object that is immortal, not any particular conditioned subject which ceases to exist from moment to moment. In this way 'we' live on or not in the same sense we live on or not from moment to moment, except not in the conditioned state we anticipate..."_ Beautifully and expertly phrased. One can always discern those who speak from the authority of direct insight and experience because they have their own (often simple) way of talking about this stuff.
@@_PL_ _"one strong appeal of materialism for many of its believers is the assumption that it means this present life and all its suffering and uncertainty is a "one and done" affair, and as such, ironically serves a comparable wish-fulfillment function for them as what heaven does for religious folk"_ Exactly. _" If they don't have ears to hear or eyes to see, that's not my problem. The message will be there for those who are able to get its drift."_ Exactly. _"One can always discern those who speak from the authority of direct insight and experience because they have their own (often simple) way of talking about this stuff."_ Exactly ;-)
3:55 - 4:30 The subtlety of this will likely be lost on many, but it is decisive. That pure subjectivity _is not_ an individual self. If anything, it would have to be the basic nature of consciousness at the basis of and common to all life. In religious terms you might say that _only god_ is reborn as everyone simultaneously while the limiting contraction and the Gestalt of the constituting elements at the root of the apparent individual ceases to exist _(and thereby the individual, too !)_ the moment when the death process is complete _(probably in a later phase of death, much deeper than all the NDEs reported)_ . The traditionalists such as René Guénon have driven this home relentlessly. And this really seems to be the traditional doctrine considering the quotations presented in _"On The One And Only Transmigrant"_ by Ananda Coomaraswamy.
_"(probably in a later phase of death, much deeper than all the NDEs reported)"_ This is an important point that rarely seems to get addressed by advocates of NDEs. I touch on this (albeit obliquely) and several other points in a piece on NDEs here: palisa66.wordpress.com/ Thanks for commenting. EDIT: Your whole comment is good, not just the part on NDEs.
Good to see another person promoting Generic Subjective Continuity. I personally thought you worded it well... But, as you'll continue to find out-and as it sounds like you already know-most people are only going to hear "word salad"... Good luck! Edit: I just realized that you're the same person that posted Sam's talk on this!
@Al-ji4gd Yes, because the nature of the phenomenon outlined in each idea doesn't derive from implications of any ontological or metaphysical premise. The second idea, also known as generic subjective continuity, can be thought of as the bare minimum basis for dismissing the materialistic view that consciousness is _"a brief crack of light between two eternities of darkness"_ (as Nabokov famously put it). But this doesn't mean consciousness is limited to any specific form (e.g., human, animal, deity, mundane, heavenly, hellish, etc., etc.). In fact, I suspect it can and does show up as pretty much anything imaginable and unimaginable, irrespective of what the fundamental nature of reality is. My reason from framing these ideas as "naturalistic" and "true even under physicalism" is because most discussions of an afterlife or immortality are in the context of NDEs, mediumship, reincarnation, and other "spiritual" phenomena, which makes it easy for materialists (who tend to associate anything remotely "spiritual" with religion and thus with anti-realism and archaic superstition) to dismiss such potentials. So, I'm not interested in preaching to the choir, but in provoking serious critical reflection in people with different views. In my view, each of the two ideas outlined in this video should at least give pause to anyone who confidently assumes that materialism guarantees their life is a one-and-done affair. That was an awfully long response to your brief question. If I still failed to address what you were asking, please let me know.
Note that, despite the potential implications of the word "naturalistic" in this essay's title, I don't subscribe to the view of physicalism, a.k.a. materialism. In fact, I've provided several arguments against it in another essay on my site (linked in the description above). My reason for providing a pair of afterlife hypotheses that could be true even under physicalism is simply that there are already _countless_ arguments for the possibility of an afterlife that assume more "spiritual" or anti-materialistic premises. And yet, no matter whether these anti-materialistic arguments are valid, they aren't likely to be taken seriously by someone who's a convinced physicalist. I believe that either of my two hypotheses here can't be dismissed so readily no matter what ontology one believes in, as long as they actually grasp what's being conveyed.
_"could be true even under physicalism"_
Anything is true under an already inconsistent set of premises by force of the _ex falso quodlibet_ .
@@TheSoteriologist See my response to your original post below.
1. 0:09 Logically, _anything_ is compatible with a view that is already inconsistent in itself by force of the _ex falso quodlibet_ . There is no need to be artful in thinking of something profound here. A married batchelor or _"genocide is good for all concerned"_ is totally compatible with materialism.
2. I don't see how the mere fact that Generic Subjective Continuity has a universal _quality_ would lead a materialist to view this as "immortality" any more than greenness being elsewhere than in a dying plant would make the green of that plant even relatively immortal.
_"Logically, anything is compatible with a view that is already inconsistent in itself by force of the_ ex falso quodlibet."
I hear you. But I don't think the inherent inconsistency or untenability of materialism affects the potential truth value of GSC.
The point I was making in saying it _"could be true under materialism"_ is that a materialist shouldn't be able to dismiss GSC on the grounds that it either favors idealism or is anti-materialistic, since neither is the case in principle.
_"I don't see how the mere fact that Generic Subjective Continuity has a universal_ quality _would lead a materialist to view this as 'immortality'"..._
This is a good and relevant point that I'm glad you brought up, as it's something I've actually encountered among not just materialists, but idealists as well. That is, since the way most people conceive of immortality is everlasting perpetuation of their familiar narrative stream, they don't see how any brand of "generic continuity" would qualify. But as I see it, this always comes down to a failure to truly grasp how this principle relates to the "familiar narrative stream" of their current life.
To wit: a) we all _feel_ at some subconscious level as if we've more or less always been here as this current experiencer, despite intellectually "knowing" that our biography has a calendar beginning; b) our life _feels_ no less valuable and precious even though we can't remember having ever lived another life; and c) we don't and can't experience nothing or nonbeing, whether putatively before this life, speculatively after this life, or as lacunae during this life (e.g., sleep and general anesthesia). The premise of GSC is that a), b), and c) are, effectively, always the case, and as such, should/would fully satisfy the underlying _need_ behind the naïve conception of immortality desired by many people, if only they actually grokked it.
@@_PL_ _"I don't think the inherent inconsistency or untenability of materialism affects the potential truth value of GSC."_
I trust you understood that I didn't say that either, only that the compatibility is logically trivial.
_"The point I was making in saying it "could be true under materialism" is that a materialist shouldn't be able to dismiss GSC on the grounds that it either favors idealism or is anti-materialistic, since neither is the case in principle."_
I don't think a materialist would even muster sufficient intelligence to feel obligated to think things through to that depth. He'll just dismiss it regardless until an alien passes through his bedroom wall because he needs the money of the establishment to pay some thot for faking her love for him. Until that day he'll simply consider you stupid, inspired by his own stupidity.
_"The premise of GSC is that a), b), and c) are, effectively, always the case, and as such, should/would fully satisfy the underlying need behind the naïve conception of immortality desired by many people, if only they actually grokked it."_
That's exactly the mature idea of immortality: it is the light of immortality itself being reflected off states of subject/object that is immortal, not any particular conditioned subject which ceases to exist from moment to moment. In this way "we" live on or not in the same sense we live on or not from moment to moment, except not in the conditioned state we anticipate, to put it really, really mildly.
However, all this will be lost on our materialist simp since all he cares about is that he remembers yesterday, but not the birth of our solar system and so he dismisses the topic on pragmatic grounds.
@@TheSoteriologist _"I trust you understood that I didn't say that either, only that the compatibility is logically trivial."_
Yes, I get that. I was probably inadvertently talking past your point because I hadn't meant to emphasize the matter of compatibility in the first place, but more the irrelevance of ontological orientation. My statement of compatibility was just meant to get the attention of the materialist listener/reader, that's all.
_"He'll just dismiss it regardless... Until that day he'll simply consider you stupid, inspired by his own stupidity."_
LOL, understood and agreed! From many years of observation and experience in these exchanges, I have no illusions that anything I say on this topic will be likely to give serious pause to the average materialist. But, since I think that one strong appeal of materialism for many of its believers is the assumption that it means this present life and all its suffering and uncertainty is a "one and done" affair, and as such, ironically serves a comparable wish-fulfillment function for them as what heaven does for religious folk, I just want to go on record as showing how even their ass-backward ontology doesn't protect them from the fundamental unknowns of eternity. If they don't have ears to hear or eyes to see, that's not my problem. The message will be there for those who are able to get its drift.
_"...it is the light of immortality itself being reflected off states of subject/object that is immortal, not any particular conditioned subject which ceases to exist from moment to moment. In this way 'we' live on or not in the same sense we live on or not from moment to moment, except not in the conditioned state we anticipate..."_
Beautifully and expertly phrased. One can always discern those who speak from the authority of direct insight and experience because they have their own (often simple) way of talking about this stuff.
@@_PL_ _"one strong appeal of materialism for many of its believers is the assumption that it means this present life and all its suffering and uncertainty is a "one and done" affair, and as such, ironically serves a comparable wish-fulfillment function for them as what heaven does for religious folk"_
Exactly.
_" If they don't have ears to hear or eyes to see, that's not my problem. The message will be there for those who are able to get its drift."_
Exactly.
_"One can always discern those who speak from the authority of direct insight and experience because they have their own (often simple) way of talking about this stuff."_
Exactly ;-)
3:55 - 4:30 The subtlety of this will likely be lost on many, but it is decisive. That pure subjectivity _is not_ an individual self. If anything, it would have to be the basic nature of consciousness at the basis of and common to all life. In religious terms you might say that _only god_ is reborn as everyone simultaneously while the limiting contraction and the Gestalt of the constituting elements at the root of the apparent individual ceases to exist _(and thereby the individual, too !)_ the moment when the death process is complete _(probably in a later phase of death, much deeper than all the NDEs reported)_ . The traditionalists such as René Guénon have driven this home relentlessly. And this really seems to be the traditional doctrine considering the quotations presented in
_"On The One And Only Transmigrant"_
by Ananda Coomaraswamy.
_"(probably in a later phase of death, much deeper than all the NDEs reported)"_
This is an important point that rarely seems to get addressed by advocates of NDEs. I touch on this (albeit obliquely) and several other points in a piece on NDEs here: palisa66.wordpress.com/
Thanks for commenting.
EDIT: Your whole comment is good, not just the part on NDEs.
Good to see another person promoting Generic Subjective Continuity. I personally thought you worded it well... But, as you'll continue to find out-and as it sounds like you already know-most people are only going to hear "word salad"... Good luck!
Edit: I just realized that you're the same person that posted Sam's talk on this!
I just can't see how acceptance of Generic Subjective Continuity would be necessary or even possible for a materialist by force of his arguments here.
@naturalisted1714 Yes, I changed my avatar recently. Thanks for watching and commenting.
@@TheSoteriologist See my response to your original post above or below this.
I wonder, would these ideas (particularly the second one) also be the case under a different metaphysics like, say, idealism, dualism or panpsychism?
@Al-ji4gd
Yes, because the nature of the phenomenon outlined in each idea doesn't derive from implications of any ontological or metaphysical premise. The second idea, also known as generic subjective continuity, can be thought of as the bare minimum basis for dismissing the materialistic view that consciousness is _"a brief crack of light between two eternities of darkness"_ (as Nabokov famously put it). But this doesn't mean consciousness is limited to any specific form (e.g., human, animal, deity, mundane, heavenly, hellish, etc., etc.). In fact, I suspect it can and does show up as pretty much anything imaginable and unimaginable, irrespective of what the fundamental nature of reality is.
My reason from framing these ideas as "naturalistic" and "true even under physicalism" is because most discussions of an afterlife or immortality are in the context of NDEs, mediumship, reincarnation, and other "spiritual" phenomena, which makes it easy for materialists (who tend to associate anything remotely "spiritual" with religion and thus with anti-realism and archaic superstition) to dismiss such potentials. So, I'm not interested in preaching to the choir, but in provoking serious critical reflection in people with different views. In my view, each of the two ideas outlined in this video should at least give pause to anyone who confidently assumes that materialism guarantees their life is a one-and-done affair.
That was an awfully long response to your brief question. If I still failed to address what you were asking, please let me know.
Who is the speaker? Thank you in advance.
It's me.
No.