Where proponents might disagree?

I think it might be interesting to examine a few places where proponents, broadly defined, might disagree:


- Whether mind=brain is true. I think this is divorced from the question of materialism, because it depends on what a brain is. For example under Bernardo's Idealism a brain upon death rejoins the Transcendent/One. As we've discussed in the past many proponents see this as no better than the oblivion Materialism offers.


- Free will. For some this is due to karmic chains on causation, for others this is God's foreknowledge of all Time. I admit the latter has surprised me when theistic proponents claim God knows us so well he knows all we might do. This seems like a restatement of mechanistic-materialism in function.


- Evolution. Is there an Intelligent Designer (or more than one such entity)? I can't see how one gets from ID to the kind of God, say, Muslims/Jews/Christians worship. Personally it seems Psi effects would explain the issues presented? That or teleology in the sense of Aristotle's final causes.


- The "ism" of the Real. I don't think this necessarily is a major point of contention for most proponents, beyond the falsity of materialist/phyiscalism. Even then I think the primary concern is life after death whether that's accomplished by Information as Fundamental, Quantum Souls, or Idealism/Dualism.


- What does parapsychology have to say about religion? To me it seems parapsychology kills most mainstream religion while fulfilling some potential meta-religion. Prophets could be gifted with Psi of some sort, or aided by discarnate entities who aren't God. NDEs seem to offer a message different from religion, that or the contradictory nature of "missionary" NDEs cuts against any particular faith being right.

Polls apart (ha!), I think you have presented us with a compendium of controversies which would be difficult to do justice in a single post. I'll have a crack at it though.

 "- Whether mind=brain is true..." 

No surprise that I think that mind and brain are categorically different and generally agree with Bernardo except for that last part: merging with the One is unnecessary because we are already merged - there is no separation other than a narrowing of focus which seems to persist into the afterlife, according to the evidence we discuss here.

"- Free will."

I believe that humanity is free to experience and make mistakes without judgement or interference from some capricious god-figure. I don't hold with determinism and one reason for that is because I don't think that in the big picture, there is any such thing as linear time. So cause and effect are somehow local and bundled with experiences and events. Again, this is a BIG subject.

"- Evolution. Is there an Intelligent Designer (or more than one such entity)? "

Yes to that except that I believe that all of creation exists within the creator and that the created become co-creators. It is a distributed process, I think, but I am probably not intellectually equipped to elucidate.

"- The "ism" of the Real."

I believe that realism is THE major attraction for skeptics, atheists and materialists - what we see, touch, smell, etc. is all there is and the fact that science is limited to investigations of the materially accessible supports the appearance of a purely materialistic reality.

"- What does parapsychology have to say about religion?"

I suspect that parapsychology is a threat to religion rather than a confirmation. That reality may be essentially "spiritual" should provide support for the religious-minded but the fact is that religions are designed to control and to mandate mediation between the mundane and the divine. As soon as individuals start to explore spirituality for themselves, without the need for priests, scholars, myths and doctrines, religion is certain to feel threatened.

Mind-Brain

Given the sheer difference in functioning between my physical and spirit body among other such, I dunno, possession experiences?  I'm inclined to believe that the mind is practically the brain but not quite, with the soul being more like a hard drive storing information that a brain can pull on like a pre trained machine learning database.

I do think it'd ridiculous to believe that "I" wasn't required for everything before I was born, or after I die, or anything else in existence with me, But somehow I'm suddenly needed for this one tiny speck of time you could argue doesn't even exist? And my perspective magically stays stuck to only one body for all that time even though there's no real difference between my brain, a rock, and a vacuum according to the mainstream? But somehow consciousness arises from the brain and does't even exist? That's just bullshit, if I wasn't required for all that, logic dictates I wouldn't be required now, yet here I am, so obviously I'm required. Individuation of consciousness is outright nail in the coffin evidence against such inane drivel.

::EDIT::

I don't think a brain needs to be meat to be a brain, as long as it contains the pattern and some ability to  do the calculations, it's a brain.

Free Will:

I've yet to see a mathematical basis for free will which leads me to believe it's not possible. That being said, I also think that's retarded and so I'll work to find a way to make it possible.

Evolution-ID: 

I don't really care which one is true, I don't think it has much relevance. I've yet to hear an argument for ID that isn't ultimately based on the arguers desire to have other people, especially someone powerful, see them as special and give them special favours over others. Chances are if someone has the power to create a universe, you aren't something they care about.

I don't see any reason to believe why either can't be possible, Although I do think that in this universe's case, it's probably naturally occurring. Although if someone did create it they'd be a nice goal to aim for depending what type of person they are.

The "ism" of the real, whatever the hell that even means:

Best I can figure this has to do wit the idea of top down physics or the immutability physical laws. Dunno, I doubt physics is anywhere near as solid as it appears. I tend to think it's more of a phase state sort of thing, in this phase state there are certain behaviours and patterns and if you want something to be "real" her it needs to conform to those, like a web API. In that way the rules could be simultaneously immutable and mutable. It would all just depends where you are.

I think the fact that there's stable behaviours at all is absolutely bizarre and absurd. The rules could've been anything, but for some reason they're this, I doubt that's because that's the only way they could be.

::EDIT::

Forgot the last one

What does parpsychology say about religion:

Admittedly I'm not as well read on the research as I could be, I'm usually too busy doing my own. But from what I'm aware of the research kills religion hardcore, not that it needed much more help dying. Beyond that it seems to indicate that maybe there's some other people out there living on on other planes of existence. Those people have their own motivations for their interactions which are all over the place. As a result I don't think the research shows even a hint of any sort of replacement or universal religion. Granted I also say that because I wouldn't follow it even if there was one. My life, my rules.

I think it might be interesting to examine a few places where proponents, broadly defined, might disagree:


- Whether mind=brain is true. I think this is divorced from the question of materialism, because it depends on what a brain is. For example under Bernardo's Idealism a brain upon death rejoins the Transcendent/One. As we've discussed in the past many proponents see this as no better than the oblivion Materialism offers.

Lots of New Agers claim that consciousness merges with some fictional being after death. There isn't a shred of evidence to support that view. Furthermore, those people seem oblivious to the evidence gained from psychical research. I have read some of Bernardo's writings and I find all his arguments very weak.

The idea of merging with some larger being is repulsive. It is also illogical. Everywhere in nature we see examples of living beings becoming more developed and sophisticated. Evolution doesn't diminish the uniqueness of human beings. We are not degenerating into amoebas. We are not merging with others. Even in ant colonies we can observe individualistic behavior. 

The evidence suggests that telepathy operates usually between emotionally linked people, or between family members/relatives. Telepathy is strongest between identical twins, and mothers and babies. If we are all just fragments of one mind, why does telepathy operate this way?

In his 42nd sitting, Cornillier asked Vettellini whether the individual consciousness becomes absorbed in a universal consciousness as spirits evolve or whether they retain their individuality.  “Monsieur Corniller, Vettellini affirms that individual consciousness can but grow greater and greater as evolution progresses,” Reine relayed.  “All that is gained and conquered by a being, defines and strengthens his individuality.  It is his, – and for himself.

A New ‘Number One’ Book on the Afterlife

I should note I was giving a very brief summary of Bernardo's theory, which was also from several years ago.

I don't necessarily presume he still holds to that view, and it's been some time since I talked about this stuff with him.

I should note I was giving a very brief summary of Bernardo's theory, which was also from several years ago.

I don't necessarily presume he still holds to that view, and it's been some time since I talked about this stuff with him.

I did wonder. I usually find myself in agreement with Bernardo's idealism but I'm not an avid follower of his writing so the thing about merging with the Transcendent/One was new to me and I didn't bother to verify either.

I did wonder. I usually find myself in agreement with Bernardo's idealism but I'm not an avid follower of his writing so the thing about merging with the Transcendent/One was new to me and I didn't bother to verify either.

Here's the piece:

The Idealist View of Consciousness After Death

The reasoning here is rather straightforward but its implications profound. The hallmark of dissociation is “a disruption of and/or discontinuity in the normal integration of consciousness, memory, identity [and] emotion” (Black & Grant, 2014, p. 191). Therefore, the end of dissociation can only entail a reintegration of “memory, identity [and] emotion” lost at birth. This means that bodily death, under idealism, must correlate with an expansion of our felt sense of identity, access to a broader set of memories and enrichment of our emotional inner life.

This conclusion is the exact opposite of what our mainstream physicalist ontology asserts. Moreover, there is nothing in the popular dualist alternative—mainly found in religious circles—that requires it either. So idealism is not only unique in its ability to explain reality more parsimoniously and completely than physicalism and dualism, it also offers a unique perspective on death.

Circumstantially but significantly, much of the literature regarding near-death experiences (NDEs) seems to corroborate this prediction of idealism (Kelly et al., 2009). To mention only one recent example, Anita Moorjani (2012) wrote of her felt sense of identity during her NDE: “I certainly don’t feel reduced or smaller in any way. On the contrary, I haven’t ever been this huge, this powerful, or this all-encompassing. … [I] felt greater and more intense and expansive than my physical being” (p. 69). It’s hard to conceive of a more unambiguous confirmation of idealism’s prediction than this passage, although Moorjani’s entire NDE report echoes the prediction precisely.

Here's the piece:

The Idealist View of Consciousness After Death

Ok thanks. This is not, of course, the same as saying that the identity is subsumed and dissipated like pouring a brightly coloured, tasty drink over the side of an ocean liner. I read what he's saying to mean that we become aware of a greater self, what I usually refer to as a gestalt soul.