Category Archives: Near Death Experiences/Consciousness

The World Economic Forum’s transhumanism, After Death Documented Consciousness, & the Afterlife (part 7)

09 Saturday Jul 2022

Posted by in afterlife, Dimensions, God, Near Death Experiences/Consciousness, Transhumanism, WEF

≈ Comments Off on The World Economic Forum’s transhumanism, After Death Documented Consciousness, & the Afterlife (part 7)

This is part seven, so if you’ve missed what has been said up to this point, here is a run down since we will be building on former articles: art. 1, the WEF wants to become digital gods by uploading human consciousness to remove biological restrictions; art. 2., the WEF envisions a world where humanity is stripped of their biological restrictions which will entail a eugenicide campaign on standard humanity, either reducing their numbers, cyborging some of them, and for the privileged, digitally uploading their consciousness; art 3., the WEF views humanity as problematic, and also believes that humanity is hackable through big advancements in biotech data and massive computational ability; art. 4., the WEF is learning from the voluminous scholarly studies on Near and After Death Consciousness, which evinces that a functioning consciousness need not be embodied; a sign inquiry salient for the topic although not part of the series per se, “A.I. will amplify bias of its creators,” art. 5., the law of entropy and the notions of eternal “digital life”; art. 6., dealing with the claim of the WEF that humans don’t have mysterious souls, and it unpacks what a spirit and a soul is and then discusses this with the claim of the WEF that humans are just hackable animals. We are building on the WEF’s relationship with Near and After Death Documented Consciousness today. As we have investigated the WEF, we have tumbled into the realm of science fiction except it is something like science cult reality. Recently, July 5th, 2022, the largest particle accelerator came back online with her goals in tow. To steer clear of conspiracies, let’s only cite two relevant pieces of data that may tie into “dimensional” discussions as related to frontier science. Sergio Bertolucci, Director for Research and Scientific Computing at CERN, famously stated back in 2009 while discussing dimensions,

Out of this door might come something, or we might send something through it.”

https://www.theregister.com/2009/11/06/lhc_dimensional_portals/

That was some time ago; on CERN’s website now, it discusses its aim at revealing dimensions:

Another way of revealing dimensions would be through the production of microscopic black holes. What exactly we would detect would depend on the number of extra dimensions, the mass of the black hole, the size of the dimensions and the energy at which the black hole occurs.

https://home.cern/science/physics/extra-dimensions-gravitons-and-tiny-black-holes

What is with my claim that science is looking less like traditional science and more like science fiction? Historically, science functions on the assumption of a closed system, which is to see the universe as such. If new or different dimensions are revealed, then either

(a) the nature of the universe is not a closed system or

(b) the contours of the closed system as formerly understood were off.

Anyone of a theistic persuasion — Christians, traditional religious Jews, Muslims, Hinduism, Jainism, etc. — has long been an advocate of understanding the natural world, or the universe, as an open system, or partially open system. I don’t want to be misunderstood as suggesting that these religions envisage the same god-world or gods-world relationship; they most certainly do not. Another misunderstanding is semantic: although the theist might be categorized as “open” in the binary “open system vs. closed system,” the way a person constructs the contours of his or her closed system will determine and frame what is within the closed system box or what is outside of it. Mathematics, for instance, frames all of nature, and some theologians might call it the language of God. If the inherent orderliness, implied intelligence, and entailed concepts like “infinity” — all proper to mathematics — invariably demarcated a divine management of the ongoing structural integrity of the natural system, then “God-presence” could be included in an otherwise natural closed system.

Expanding access to dimensions other than those historically recognized by scientists is transformative on both scientists and humanity’s understanding of the universe, and how the closed system is understood and its viability. I’d be amiss to pass up an excellent opportunity for a brief excursus on developing scientific knowledge: it is a misunderstanding or a misrepresentation to suppose that science is a largely static body of knowledge or that science represents altogether irrefutable axioms. Indeed, to the curious, the scholar, or to the person liberated from their own biases’ utter control, some part of science is always developing and revisable. Some science has tremendous surety. Nevertheless, when a student ascends to the domain of the theoretical — which exists in every serious domain of intellectual inquiry — it becomes perspicuous that science is less rigid than often touted or assumed.  

How the closed system (the universe) is or should be understood will remain and be reinforced by scientists’ avowed confidence, often insisted upon with a dedicated dogmatism, until some need for major revision. There is a recent, seismic example of revising the way the closed system, which is the universe, is understood. Through most of the 20th century, the universe was viewed as a closed system that was eternally existing. It is shocking that the scientific community allowed for such a religious concept as “eternality” to be assigned to the cosmos. Through advancements in tracing light backwards and microwaves, the closed system of the universe — as it was understood at the time — had to go from being an eternal entity to becoming one that had a beginning: the big bang theory was born and prevails in the scientific community until this day. I cite this example because of how huge a change this was on the contours of the closed system. The change, in philosophical terms, could not be bigger: the universe literally went from being a necessary entity to a contingent one. The nature of the cosmos is not easily or quickly discerned, it would seem.

Dimensionality, that there could be more dimensions, and that such would change the contours of the closed system, evinces either the need to abandon the old closed system for something much more fluid or the scientific community could join with theists in affirming the likelihood of a partially open system. I am indifferent in which option is chosen. As scientific inquiry breaks into ever new proposals about differing or new dimensions, the field of After Death Consciousness will be drawn together with it. Religious persons have long advocated for consciousness after death and consciousness apart from the body (that died and is in the ground): and hence differing dimensions or realms. Going back to Sergio’s quote above, it is not clear if Sergio is suggesting that whatever might come through this dimensional door would be sentient or personal. If he is suggesting sentience, the religious person might feel again validated: most major religions hold that there is a Mind or minds quite apart from and different from humanity. It might be equally argued that the fascination people have with ancient and modern mythologies, like the Marvel, D.C., or 40k universes, suggests many subconsciously are drawn to the concept of other minds very different from our own. We are about ready to tie together a few pieces of what may appear to be unrelated data, but there is one piece still to introduce. How many knew that John Hopkins University launched a study in 2018 asking volunteers to complete a survey if they have

had encounters with seemingly autonomous beings or entities after taking DMT.”

https://nationalpost.com/health/aliens-machine-elves-living-slinkys-scientists-to-study-the-entities-people-meet-on-drug-dmt

Who headed this study up? Roland Griffiths, a behavioral biologist with expertise in psychedelics that induce “mystical-type and near-death experiences.” I’ve cited the story here which goes on to consult with expert McKenna, who elaborates on these autonomous but seemingly real entities. When Alex Jones discusses the same with Joe Rogan in 2019, he gets labeled a loon. Alex Jones alleges the University of Washington was experimenting with DMT while turning people’s hearts off to attempt to commune with these entities.

That a respected University like John Hopkins would be already publicly investigating the relationship between DMT, near death experiences, and these autonomous entities, in 2018, and that it would be public, makes the marginal step to experimenting with it only a very small step. The field of Near and After Death Consciousness pairs neatly with experimentation looking into what the consciousness might be doing or with whom it might be involved during the death state.

For the orthodox Christian, notions of other minds and consciousnesses out there that are not human is no big deal. The Bible already documents many such examples. For a naturalist, someone devoted to science as some immovable norm that they dogmatically defend as unbreakable, the project at CERN, Near/After Death Consciousness, and the University of John Hopkins’ dedicated research into “autonomous entities” related to near death experiences, should raise quite a few questions about the sufficiency of their naturalist beliefs. Arguably, every dimensional boundary shattered, if CERN does what it intends, forces the wooden, closed system regarding the nature of the universe to revise its contours. If dimensionality is and is demonstrable, how useful is the scientific naturalist’s closed system beyond its evident pragmatic results? What I mean by this is that much repetitive predictability has been produced using the scientific method, which itself prescribes running the experiment in a closed system. These results as practically changing our world should not and cannot be denied. That the universe itself is a closed system would be repudiated by CERN showing that other dimensions are and can connect to the dimensions we exist within. The dangers that playing with cross-dimensional potential might present should not be dismissed readily. To incessantly affirm that the universe is a closed system while breaking or having to continually revise that thesis to make it accurate of the world as we find it is to die the death of a 1,000 qualifications.

Disembodied consciousness has largely been archived in the annuls of science, via the sizable data regarding near and after death documented consciousness (see my former short article on this if wanting to know more). Consciousness apart from the body is now not only a maxim affirmed by religious persons but is one that those as worldly as the World Economic Forum would likewise affirm. If we were to speak of after death consciousness in a scientific or more scientific way, we might state that disembodied consciousness moves the person involved into a different mode of being, or a different dimension. In some sense, this is nothing more than semantics. Historically, religious people call this mode of being the afterlife. That we might now discuss it in terms of crossing into a different dimension seems little more than contextualizing it to the conversation at hand. Again, how can evidence for after death consciousness, wholly without the body, not suggest or demonstrate that some dimensionality does exist well beyond what David Hume could ever imagine? Strikingly, the WEF might be aligned with a certain Humean atheist predisposition, but that anti-God tendency does not disallow the WEF from courting and using the religious notion of disembodied consciousness.

Lastly, the WEF is set on advancing A.I., which I mean here not only “artificial intelligence” but also “alien intelligence.” Those intimate in the development of A.I. know that there is the possibility that humanity will create “unintelligible intelligence.” This means that humans will not be able to know or understand how the A.I. is coming to its conclusions, and the WEF has affirmed in more than one place that such an A.I. is laudable. Unintelligible intelligence cannot but suggest that this A.I. would be likewise an alien intelligence. My point is that humanity is already courting alien intelligence in its machinations. These alien A.I. intelligences might be birthed by humanity, but that does not mean these A.I. will not become altogether cryptic and unknowable. In fact, one A.I. has already begun to create its own non-human language. It is a little-known fact, but John Hopkins University is tied to the Rockefeller Foundation (which is part of the WEF and globalists) going as far back as the 1940s (as documented by Reuters) precisely in relation to horrible medical experimentation.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-maryland-lawsuit-infections-idUSKCN1OY1N3

If the WEF is interested in alien intelligence, as I’ve discussed that here, and a University that has engaged in unethical medical experimentation in the past is now involved in near death DMT research, then is it a strange question to wonder about “other dimensional entities” being in the WEF’s purview. Yuval Harari, the WEF’s philosopher and prophet, has already written a book about his/their movement being about establishing 21st century digital religions (Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind). To me, it is an oddity that the WEF with Harari as their mouthpiece see themselves as a kind of new religion. To be fair, the way Harari defines “religion” is entirely idiosyncratic, but it does not change the fact that he advances a “se-apothesis” by claiming that the homo-sapien became god by its own merit. Tying alien intelligence (via A.I.) together with these frightful notions of eugeniciding humanity certainly casts a dark shadow over the question of whether the WEF is courting any other alien intelligences, especially as we see their interest in disembodied consciousness. Some have called the WEF a death cult due to these religious overtures it presents and because of its dedication to, and I quote a chapter at the end of Harari’s book, “The end of Homo Sapiens.” As science breaks down traditional notions about how the universe is a closed system, the experimentation of cross dimensionality (CERN), after death documented consciousness, and alien intelligences entering the fray — whether A.I. or whatever these “autonomous entities” communing with humans in these DMT/near death experiments — it is justifiable to ask more questions about the dangers we as a human species court. Asking these too is not the result of some fanaticism or conspiracy conjured insanity. Indeed, the precipice we find ourselves upon is one where science and religion are conjoining, where notions of other “minds” is becoming part of the conversation for the technological class even as the Christians, and other religious persons, stand steadily on their working thesis that the Mind gave birth to this human dimension’s minds and a whole host of other worldly beings known as angels and demons.

Dr. Scalise

Transhumanism, Near Death Documented Consciousness, and the Afterlife (part 4)

09 Thursday Jun 2022

Posted by in afterlife, apotheosis, Near Death Experiences/Consciousness, Science, Transhumanism

≈ Comments Off on Transhumanism, Near Death Documented Consciousness, and the Afterlife (part 4)

Tags

, , , ,

The World Economic Forum Takes a Page From Empirical Data on Consciousness after Death to become Gods

Listen to this Article’s Text

There is a plentitude of empirical, scientific, peer-reviewed data on Near Death Documented Consciousness. Although I opted for using “Near Death” rather than “After Death,” much of this data documents consciousness while someone is dead. For the sake of this discussion, we are uninterested in “experiences” that someone had while dead that cannot be empirically verified. What is scientific or empirical verification? That a person has knowledge of happenings, events, or conversations while her EEG read “dead” or while there is zero brain activity (= death) that they could not have had otherwise, and subsequent to her resuscitation, she reports it and someone, often more disinterested that not, verifies whether it is true or not. There are a host of after death or near-death experiences that people have, a firsthand account of what he saw while dead. They are of no empirical or scientific value because there is no way to falsify a firsthand account that is locked away inside someone’s mind or perceptions. Even Scripture states that every word should be validated by “two or three witnesses” and thus we should leave those out of conversation here. There is a myriad of peer reviewed, empirically verifiable data on Near or After Death Consciousness, from “during death consciousness” to documented “out of body knowledge” to “the non-locality and immateriality” of the quantum or molecular universe. At the end of the article, I have put up a few links to show this empirical data’s existence if someone wants to begin exploring it. Let’s not lose sight, however, of the point of this article; it is not about whether you think the data for after death consciousness is compelling or not but about how the World Economic Forum’s ideology builds on the notion of after death consciousness.

Notably, the WEF’s interest is in disembodied digitized consciousness, and we experience the WEF’s interest through cultural influence campaigns the likes of the Amazon series, “Upload.” Although it is usually psychologists, psychiatrists, and spiritual-vocation persons, that express and incite interest in near and after death consciousness, we have a new massively powerful group entering this conversation: the global elite, the WEF, who we might just call “dehumanizing digital futurists.” They shockingly bridge the gap between atheist and new religion; one of their chief spokespersons, Yuval Harari, arguing that this is one of the new 21st century religions. The shear fact that these digital futurists have found a potential way (if they can actualize it) to propose a new atheistic religion is no small feat. Who would have thought that computer programmers would form a main vector in advancing knowledge on near/after death consciousness or disembodied consciousness? Big issues that are caused to be readdress because of this new intellectual movement include “what is death,” “what does it mean to be human,” “what is the nature of information,” “what is the body as it relates to being human,” “is there a spirit in each person,” “would you want to exist in a disembodied space,” “what about the knowledge of what is lost if/when you become digitized,” “is what is gained better than all that is lost in becoming a disembodied consciousness.”

An oddity is the makeup of the WEF: that it sits on the cutting edge of technology and science. Historically, science is viewed as at odds with religion, theism, or any non-naturalistic or non-materialistic views of the world. Said differently, science as an ideology (sometimes called scientism) and worldview is usually metaphysical naturalism or philosophical materialism. The exact definitions of all these are unimportant here; the point is that ‘humans’ from a mainstream scientific view is either viewed as nothing but its physical materiality (the body, brain, finger, toes, etc.) or all that humanity is derives itself from strictly natural processes — hence Darwinism, evolution, adaptation, etc. The WEF is, based on their dismissal of any God-ward worldview, presumably naturalists of one type or another, yet they bring in traditional concepts from religion like “intelligent design,” “disembodied consciousness,” “eternal life,” and “gods.” There is certainly an apotheosis in their worldview, which is traditionally put in the category of mythology, religion, or paganism, yet here we are. Should we call this WEF worldview apotheotic naturalism? What the WEF is trying to do here — in creating a new worldview and issuing a call for eugenicide on biological humanity — must be recognized as ambitious in the extreme. Perhaps it is delusions of grandeur, perhaps it is reckless, or perhaps there is something more sinister at play.

The proposition that human consciousness could be digitized so that the “mind” goes on while the “brain” dies would call for a redefining of both “life” and “death.” Similarly, if this could be done, the debate about dualism, about whether the mind is different from the brain, might finally be settled. Much research and debate has gone into precisely what the brain is: at least one version of this takes the brain as a receptor and sender of human consciousness. Could human consciousness be facilitated without the brain as the WEF proposes? Would we still call it human consciousness if so or would it be synthetic post human consciousness? When I first thought about these things it sounded much like science fiction, yet Elon Musk’s neural-link and Syncron’s computer-controlling human body parts makes this futurist “fiction” look much closer on the horizon. Do not hear me wrong: I am only preliminarily reflecting on this new technology and the WEF’s post-human proposals, but I find it discomforting, immoral, and just a bad idea all around. Next time, I will get into the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics (entropy) as to why the WEF’s vision of digital apotheosis is so misguided.

In summary, we might say that the WEF wants to forge a world with consciousness apart from the human body. The empirical data from the field of after death documented consciousness provides the WEF with a scientific data set that shows that the proposition, “Consciousness without the body is possible,” is true. The WEF seems to be trying to make a counter argument to the spiritual and religious people, who have for millennia claimed that humanity survives the death of their body. The WEF might say, as Harari has intimated on more than one occasion, it is not some metaphysical spirit or soul that continues on, but it is consciousness as an electrical and data-bit set. In this way, it might be possible for the WEF to advance a narrative of their new digital religion while staying true to metaphysical naturalism, staying true to a universe that does not involve God or gods, well, at least no gods other than themselves.

https://digital.library.unt.edu/explore/collections/JNDS/browse/?q=consciousness&t=metadata&sort=

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1505485/m1/5/?q=after%20death

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc799125/m1/3/?q=after%20death

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc461716/?q=consciousness

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1727986/?q=consciousness

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc799308/?q=empirical

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc799442/?q=empirical

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc461717/?q=empirical

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc461722/?q=empirical

https://iands.org/research/publications/journal-of-near-death-studies.html

Transhumanism, Near Death Documented Consciousness, & the Afterlife (Part 1)

02 Thursday Jun 2022

Posted by in afterlife, Near Death Experiences/Consciousness, Transhumanism, WEF

≈ Comments Off on Transhumanism, Near Death Documented Consciousness, & the Afterlife (Part 1)

Tags

, , , , ,

The World Economic Forum’s Focus on Transhumanism

Why is the World Economic Forum — and the globalist elites it represents or entails — focused on Transhumanism? There is a myriad of implications in this one question, not least of which involves the worldview of the World Economic Forum (WEF). The goal of transhumanism is essentially the cyborging of humanity. This can be conceived in several ways, but perhaps the most dominant is the digitalization of human consciousness or the union of human consciousness with digital forms of existence. Much of this is still theoretical, but that gap is closing quickly, and, as such, the questions of the origin or humanity as well as its telos (destiny) rise in relevance. Elon Musk’s Neuralink is deploying even as I write: it embeds a chip in your skull that is surgically-robotically connected to the brain’s electrical neurological framework. Another recent discussion involves a Bluetooth for your brain, being used to help paralyzed individuals regain some functionality since a computer might be able to tell their body what to do even when their brain would fail on its own: ABC interviewed the CEO of Syncron who elucidates the process.

Transhumanist of the WEF sort frequently laud the notion of uploading the human consciousness digitally. This is where the question of the human soul and spirit arise along with humanity’s origin and destiny. Presumably, the WEF is interested in the prospect of immortality, a prospect conceivably made possible by casting off biological “restrictions.” Is the human mind nothing more than electrical signals? An important distinction is that “brain” refers to the physical material in the human body while “mind” refers to the immaterial information/data/intel that composes or constitutes human identity or “person.” There is much to discuss, and nuance must guide it.

The other obscured topic looming over all of this is the “God-world relationship.” This topic really is a principle meta-narrative, and how the transhumanist agenda advances — what it discovers — will have direct bearing on how we understand not only the God-human relationship, but the God-world relationship as well. Lastly, we will work with the scientific data of documented consciousness apart from brain functionality. This concludes part 1, with which I only intended to set the stage for this discussion of transhumanism, human destiny, and the fate of the God-world relationship.