Dualism or idealist monism as the best model for survival after death data

The biggest problem when it comes to questions like this is it very much comes down to a matter or perspective and the awkward situation that reality might not be something that seems nice to us. 

We as humans might as well be living in a 2d dimension. The 3rd dimension could be visible to us if we could only shift out perspective, but that ability is fundamentally impossible to us. Every so often someone sees that dimension and comes back, trying to describe it and make sense of it using the world they know, but in the end we're quite literally incapable of doing so. And yet here we are with our limited perspective trying to make sense of why souls might reincarnate, why we choose life in the first place, why we have problems of suffering ect ect. How could we ever know? And even more so, what happens if these grand problems we struggle with are utterly unimportant in the grand scheme of things. What if the grand suffering we experience as humans doesn't matter from a perspective higher than ours? Why would it, it's not like we would still think like humans once we are not longer tied to the world as we know it. 

Skeptics make fun of people who research and believe in this stuff because it's a form of wish fulfillment, because it's all about being afraid of dying, whatever. In the end people are afraid of the unknown and the unknown of what we do and don't know about why and how of survival and how it might very well be impossible for us to ever know is its own special kind of terrifying.

Skeptics who make fun of this kind of stuff are actually indulging in what they always try to deride - their own form of wish fulfillment with fear at its base that their lifetime of dedication to the materialist cause was ultimately wrong. That a lifetime of living and working in a continuous indoctrination and brainwashing by the media and academia in a nihilistic reductionist materialist view of reality (essentially scientism - making a pseudo-religion out of science), was ultimately totally mistaken. Nobody wants to feel that way about their life - that all that effort and preaching the cause was actually pointless and mistaken. So the pseudo skeptics (not really legitimate skeptics since reductive materialism is a faith religion to them) are themselves driven by fear.

Proponents of the paranormal in contrast don't base their beliefs in the primacy of consciousness on defense of the ego and fear of death, but on multiple solid philosophical/metaphysical arguments showing that materialism is invalid and that consciousness is transcendental and immaterial in nature, and on a massive amount of experimental and empirical evidence for the existence of an afterlife and a whole spiritual dimension to human life and reality. They are following both pure philosophical logic and the data, and in any case will generally admit that their belief system is not a total faith but a data-based non-faith-based belief that is always in some degree partial - though for many up in the over 95% region. Unlike followers of the faith-based pseudo-religion of scientism, paranormal proponents generally don't profess absolute certainty - just a fairly great degree of certainty.

Skeptics who make fun of this kind of stuff are actually indulging in what they always try to deride - their own form of wish fulfillment with fear at its base that their lifetime of dedication to the materialist cause was ultimately wrong. That a lifetime of living and working in a continuous indoctrination and brainwashing by the media and academia in a nihilistic reductionist materialist view of reality (essentially scientism - making a pseudo-religion out of science), was ultimately totally mistaken. Nobody wants to feel that way about their life - that all that effort and preaching the cause was actually pointless and mistaken. So the pseudo skeptics (not really legitimate skeptics since reductive materialism is a faith religion to them) are themselves driven by fear.

Proponents of the paranormal in contrast don't base their beliefs in the primacy of consciousness on defense of the ego and fear of death, but on multiple solid philosophical/metaphysical arguments showing that materialism is invalid and that consciousness is transcendental and immaterial in nature, and on a massive amount of experimental and empirical evidence for the existence of an afterlife and a whole spiritual dimension to human life and reality. They are following both pure philosophical logic and the data, and in any case will generally admit that their belief system is not a total faith but a data-based non-faith-based belief that is always in some degree partial - though for many up in the over 95% region. Unlike followers of the faith-based pseudo-religion of scientism, paranormal proponents generally don't profess absolute certainty - just a fairly great degree of certainty.

I think fear of Hell also drives a lot of this on a somewhat subconscious level.

I myself wasn't raised to think I could be eternally damned, rather Hell is a temporary cleansing place between incarnations. 

As such I feel I am more rational than many Western "skeptics" whose drivers seem irrational to point they'll accept any absurdity so long as it can cut "God" out of the picture.

Really I find pseudo-skeptics to be quite weak minded generally speaking...

The biggest problem when it comes to questions like this is it very much comes down to a matter or perspective and the awkward situation that reality might not be something that seems nice to us. 

We as humans might as well be living in a 2d dimension. The 3rd dimension could be visible to us if we could only shift out perspective, but that ability is fundamentally impossible to us. Every so often someone sees that dimension and comes back, trying to describe it and make sense of it using the world they know, but in the end we're quite literally incapable of doing so. And yet here we are with our limited perspective trying to make sense of why souls might reincarnate, why we choose life in the first place, why we have problems of suffering ect ect. How could we ever know? And even more so, what happens if these grand problems we struggle with are utterly unimportant in the grand scheme of things. What if the grand suffering we experience as humans doesn't matter from a perspective higher than ours? Why would it, it's not like we would still think like humans once we are not longer tied to the world as we know it. 

Skeptics make fun of people who research and believe in this stuff because it's a form of wish fulfillment, because it's all about being afraid of dying, whatever. In the end people are afraid of the unknown and the unknown of what we do and don't know about why and how of survival and how it might very well be impossible for us to ever know is its own special kind of terrifying.

"Skeptics" make fun of people because they know their actual case is weaker than they want, so they have to resort to trying to shame people into accepting the Materialist faith.

But going to the more interesting question of whether our suffering matters at all, this is actually something I've considered. Is it worse to be confronted with an indifferent universe that has no plan for our immortal souls, or with some Gnostic explanation for how we are the harvest of the "gods" (whatever such entities actually are)?

While we can't know for sure, there do seem to be some potential lines of consideration such as mystic visions, the most profound NDEs, and some sense of [purpose] communicated from in-between lives. On the other hand we also have afterlife accounts that suggest you just go on being the person you are now in a relatively mundane place. And of course there are also reports of a Void or even Hells.

I do think we should separate the question of Meaning from the question of Survival, however when we try to think of the best metaphysics the consideration of Design means that some account of why we suffer Evil is going to enter the conversation.

I don't see us coming up with answer that satisfies every seeker but I do think the conversation remains interesting and worth having.

While we can't know for sure, there do seem to be some potential lines of consideration such as mystic visions, the most profound NDEs, and some sense of [purpose] communicated from in-between lives. On the other hand we also have afterlife accounts that suggest you just go on being the person you are now in a relatively mundane place. And of course there are also reports of a Void or even Hells.

I do think we should separate the question of Meaning from the question of Survival, however when we try to think of the best metaphysics the consideration of Design means that some account of why we suffer Evil is going to enter the conversation.

I don't see us coming up with answer that satisfies every seeker but I do think the conversation remains interesting and worth having.

To me it just seems to be a case that all too often things get too wrapped up in questions of evil or the like when it very much seems like from the point we are given from experiencers that those things just don't exist in what comes after. I've never grow up in a religious environment so the need to constantly address those kinda issues has always seemed like a bit of a holdout from old fashioned very human made ideals. 

And you're very right with not coming up with an answer that satisfies every seeker but the conversation is still worth having. Survival data is as much about uncomfortable truths as it is ressurances and we shouldn't shy away from them when they appear. There was always the joking question used against religious people: Did Hitler go to Heaven? Well if we listen to the data we have, it very much seems like he would have.

To me it just seems to be a case that all too often things get too wrapped up in questions of evil or the like when it very much seems like from the point we are given from experiencers that those things just don't exist in what comes after. I've never grow up in a religious environment so the need to constantly address those kinda issues has always seemed like a bit of a holdout from old fashioned very human made ideals. 

And you're very right with not coming up with an answer that satisfies every seeker but the conversation is still worth having. Survival data is as much about uncomfortable truths as it is ressurances and we shouldn't shy away from them when they appear. There was always the joking question used against religious people: Did Hitler go to Heaven? Well if we listen to the data we have, it very much seems like he would have.

I think if we only include a section of NDEs, specifically from the modern West, then yes one might conclude Hitler faces a life review and then gets to experience the wonders that other NDErs have spoken of.

But NDEs also include mention of Hells, especially when we look back into history or expand our geography.

All to say the evidence for Survival does not give us clear indications of what Survival is actually like. But in regards to this thread's discussion of the best metaphysics that includes Survival I believe we should consider descriptions of other realities and how they'd fit into our metaphysical pictures.

Dad's Doomsday Guide Podcast: Dr. Edward Kelly: Consciousness, Idealism + the Paranormal

Dr. Edward Kelly joins the podcast to discuss consciousness, idealism and the paranormal. During the discussion we touch on phenomenon such as the stigmata, precognition, psychic abilities, mystical experiences, psychedelics, NDEs and so much more. We even get into the potential dangers of accessing higher levels of consciousness and if there are darker forces at play.

Dr. Kelly is a wealth of knowledge, and was kind enough to spend over two hours discussing where he believes science is headed, and how physicalism (materialism) is an outdated model for describing the true nature of the universe. If we ever hope to understand what is actually happening around us, we must abandon our preconceived notions of what we believe reality to be, and open our minds to the possibility that the truth is much stranger than we currently believe.

The search for God leads to strange ideas. Panentheism claims that the world is in God but God is more than the world. Can this new kind of God make sense? Featuring interviews with Philip Clayton, Marcel Sarot, Michael Levine, Yujin Nagasawa, Sarah Coakley, and Alister McGrath.

The universe according to Bohm actually has two faces, or more precisely, two orders. One is the explicate order, corresponding to the physical world as we know it in day-to-day reality, the other a deeper, more fundamental order which Bohm calls the implicate order. The implicate order is the vast holomovement. We see only the surface of this movement as it presents or "explicates" itself from moment to moment in time and space.

What we see in the world — the explicate order — is no more than the surface of the implicate order as it unfolds. Time and space are themselves the modes or forms of the unfolding process. They are like the screen on the video game. The displays on the screen may seem to interact directly with each other but, in fact, their interaction merely reflects what the game computer is doing. The rules which govern the operation of the computer are, of course, different from those that govern the behavior of the figures displayed on the screen. Moreover, like the implicate order of Bohm's model, the computer might be capable of many operations that in no way apparent upon examination of the game itself as it progresses on the screen.

 -Synchronicity: Science, Myth, and The Trickster (1990) by Allan Combs & Mark Holland

=-=-=

The Super Implicate Order

Bohm was also extending his notion of the Implicate Order. Aspects of the implicate unfold and manifest as the explicate. But in this sense there was nothing new emerging, since all was already co-present in the implicate, and so Bohm proposed another level—the Super Implicate. When the implicate manifests an aspect of itself into the explicate, this manifestation is observed by the super implicate, which then feeds back into the implicate. By way of an illustration Bohm pointed to a video game. The computer program (Implicate) unfolds into the explicate (the screen with the spaceships) and the whole process simply iterates. But with the addition of a player it is possible to observe the spaceships and, by moving the joystick, to feed back into the computer and modify the program. In this way, Bohm said, creativity is introduced.

  -F. David Peat, David Bohm Pari Center entry