Survival

[Jim Cross]

Indeed, science, based on subjective experience, once studied a pattern of the sun, along with the firmament at large, 'rising' and 'setting' beyond the horizon, and came up with a theory of geocentrism, plausible enough at the time. Until science deduced through reason that the earth was spinning on its axis, and the sun was orbiting around the centre of the galaxy, not really our experience at all, and then came up with another theory to account for the pattern. Now, what of that pattern countlessly reported over all of recorded history of encounters with the 'dead'?

If you are saying ghosts are like geocentrism, I can see your point. We have a better theory now.

Mysteriously snuffed out candles, weird sensations and shivers down the spine may not be due to the presence of ghosts in haunted houses but to very low frequency sound that is inaudible to humans. British scientists have shown in a controlled experiment that the extreme bass sound known as infrasound produces a range of bizarre effects in people including anxiety, extreme sorrow and chills — supporting popular suggestions of a link between infrasound and strange sensations.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna3077192

Please read Mishlove's essay and get back to me whether you think ALL the cases reported there qualify as "strange sensations". If not, your explanation has no value in this context.

Mishlove's essay is terrible from what I can see by glancing at it. Mostly anecdotal and/or based on accounts decades or more old that can no longer be verified or researched.

I'll give BK credit in that he was at least trying to make his arguments based on mainstream science.

[Mark Tetzner]

What a toxic place this has become almost an anti-BK-forum. I will be a passive reader from now on for the most part.

[Martin_]

If you are saying ghosts are like geocentrism, I can see your point. We have a better theory now.



https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna3077192

Please read Mishlove's essay and get back to me whether you think ALL the cases reported there qualify as "strange sensations". If not, your explanation has no value in this context.

Mishlove's essay is terrible from what I can see by glancing at it. Mostly anecdotal and/or based on accounts decades or more old that can no longer be verified or researched.

I'll give BK credit in that he was at least trying to make his arguments based on mainstream science.

Ok so what your're saying is that you don't have to answer whether the "strange sensations" explanation would explain the cases reported in the essay, because you don't trust that the reported cases are real?

[Martin_]

What a toxic place this has become almost an anti-BK-forum. I will be a passive reader from now on for the most part.

You're right. I should stop feeding Jim.
I'll get back to reading BK's essay.

[Soul_of_Shu]

What a toxic place this has become almost an anti-BK-forum. I will be a passive reader from now on for the most part.

Well, I would suggest more 'meta' kastrup, as the forum name implies, rather than anti-kastrup—although some occasional facile detractors may be in that category. My own critique, if you can call it a critique, is only that, to my liking, he doesn't venture far enough into the profound implications of idealism—albeit, he just doesn't see that as his role, content to deconstruct the limits of materialism, and offer a cogent, scientifically compatible (or so he claims) counter-materialist argument, while being wary of over-speculating about so-called paranormal experiences, like NDEs, OBEs, psychedelic trips, etc. Very few here would dispute that his endeavour is not without merit. Some just want to take it much further than that.

[Martin_]

Ok, here's a nugget from BK which I haven't seen before. (p.39):
The reason the cosmic web looks like a neuronal network is because it's the extrinsic appearance of MAL! (my paraphrasing)

[Mark Tetzner]

What a toxic place this has become almost an anti-BK-forum. I will be a passive reader from now on for the most part.

Well, I would suggest more 'meta' kastrup, as the forum name implies, rather than anti-kastrup—although some occasional facile detractors may be in that category. My own critique, if you can call it a critique, is only that, to my liking, he doesn't venture far enough into the profound implications of idealism—albeit, he just doesn't see that as his role, content to deconstruct the limits of materialism, and offer a cogent, scientifically compatible (or so he claims) counter-materialist argument, while being wary of over-speculating about so-called paranormal experiences, like NDEs, OBEs, psychedelic trips, etc. Very few here would dispute that his endeavour is not without merit. Some just want to take it much further than that.

I dont. Though I would listen to your personal stories, you know the type, if a forum wasnt a place that is not conducive to them, which I understand.

[AshvinP]

What a toxic place this has become almost an anti-BK-forum. I will be a passive reader from now on for the most part.

Well, I would suggest more 'meta' kastrup, as the forum name implies, rather than anti-kastrup—although some occasional facile detractors may be in that category. My own critique, if you can call it a critique, is only that, to my liking, he doesn't venture far enough into the profound implications of idealism—albeit, he just doesn't see that as his role, content to deconstruct the limits of materialism, and offer a cogent, scientifically compatible (or so he claims) counter-materialist argument, while being wary of over-speculating about so-called paranormal experiences, like NDEs, OBEs, psychedelic trips, etc. Very few here would dispute that his endeavour is not without merit. Some just want to take it much further than that.

Exactly right. BK will not speak with any non-materialist critics or potential critics. Vervaeke came sort of close, although I think JV basically holds to some version of materialist ontology. You have already pointed out how he will hash it out with someone who has 10 subscribers on YT but he won't respond to any of Matt Segall's invitations to discuss, of which there have been many. If anything, amping up the meta-kastrup rhetoric on here has the best possible of chance of goading him into deeper dialogues beyond the anti-materialist mantras against a version of "materialism" which is practically non-existent within somewhat philosophically and scientifically-informed academic circles anymore.

[Martin_]

while being wary of over-speculating about so-called paranormal experiences, like NDEs, OBEs, psychedelic trips, etc

Speaking of that, re: the essay of this topic. (Formal) BK does go into a lot more detail on these subjects than I have seen him (Formally) do before.


The article also clarifies the details on what he proposes happens after death. (Not surprisingly, since it's the subject at hand);

I think this quote is quite illuminating.

As we’ve seen above, when a person dies the contents of their dissociation are
released into the broader, transpersonal web of cognitive activity that constitutes the
world as it is in itself. It is conceivable that newly emerging alters, with dissociative
boundaries not yet sealed, could incorporate those contents in the process of their
development. From a first-person perspective, this would literally mean having some
of a dead person’s memories. Yet, there would be no differentiated agent
reincarnating in the new alter; only a form of memory osmosis. I submit that,
empirically, so-called reincarnation cases are indistinguishable from what I am
proposing here.

It's possible that he has said this already in one of his many conversations, but it's the first time i see this in a rigourous essay. Things are moving along!

[AshvinP]

while being wary of over-speculating about so-called paranormal experiences, like NDEs, OBEs, psychedelic trips, etc

Speaking of that, re: the essay of this topic. (Formal) BK does go into a lot more detail on these subjects than I have seen him (Formally) do before.


The article also clarifies the details on what he proposes happens after death. (Not surprisingly, since it's the subject at hand);

I think this quote is quite illuminating.

As we’ve seen above, when a person dies the contents of their dissociation are
released into the broader, transpersonal web of cognitive activity that constitutes the
world as it is in itself. It is conceivable that newly emerging alters, with dissociative
boundaries not yet sealed, could incorporate those contents in the process of their
development. From a first-person perspective, this would literally mean having some
of a dead person’s memories. Yet, there would be no differentiated agent
reincarnating in the new alter; only a form of memory osmosis. I submit that,
empirically, so-called reincarnation cases are indistinguishable from what I am
proposing here.

It's possible that he has said this already in one of his many conversations, but it's the first time i see this in a rigourous essay. Things are moving along!

Things are not moving along in the above quote of BK. Things are getting worse and worse. Instead of admitting he simply does not know what occurs when a person dies and perhaps listening to reasoned arguments of others about what does actually happen (like Cleric here), which he could then challenge, question, clarify, etc., he projects his abstract intellectual speculation across the threshold of death and refuses to discuss the issue with anyone else in any precise and rigorous way. No matter what, he refuses to abandon the concept of "dissociative boundaries not yet sealed", which is the implicitly dualistic reason why he is forced to speculate recklessly in this manner, about perhaps the most important philosophical and spiritual topic we can discuss. Anyone thinking clearly about this can perceive why it is an entirely self-imposed limitation, with no basis in any consistent idealism.