The Atheist Afterlife: p57-80

Posted in Atheism, Books, Consciousness, The Atheist Afterlife on  | 6 minutes | 13 Comments →

This installment covers four short chapters comprising the final section of Part One: The Fourth Dimension of Space [7]; The Second Dimension of Time [8]; When Separate Things Merge [9]; and, But Wait… There’s More [10].

Staume’s Inside-Out Theory posits an afterlife similar to a dream: consciousness turned inside-out on itself. The idea is that we dream in an expanded geometry with additional dimensions of time and space, which increases the potential for interrelationships between them. Staume raises an interesting point concerning the difficulty often experienced while trying to make sense of dreams:

Because we know that additional dimensions increase the ways that we can join things, we can predict that fewer dimensions would involve the loss of interrelationships; things would become disjointed and lose their internal logic–which is exactly what happens when we try to remember our dreams [58].

Elsewhere in this series, I’ve applauded Staume’s tendency towards conservatively stated claims, and the following is another example of what I mean. After suggesting that one needs to draw on their own dream experiences to test this idea of expanded geometry, Staume writes:

This presents two problems. The first is that this is subjective; if you find a correlation, all I have is your word for it, and vice-versa [59].

Staume refers to the fourth spatial dimension as rotation, and suggests that in this dimension, one could see something from all sides simultaneously. Parallax would no longer occur, and an object could appear the same size regardless of its proximity. Admittedly, this part of the book is a bit hard to follow, but at the same time, the ideas don’t strike me as any more bizarre than quantum tunneling.

As with much of Staume’s theory, the implications of this fourth spatial dimension are strikingly similar to the accounts of perception supplied by those who’ve experienced OBE / NDE:

If the Inside-Out Theory is correct, at the death of our body, our vision–as bizarre as it may seem–would be enhanced [61].

This is in fact what many who report these experiences attest to, and the same goes for hearing. You might recall from Pam Reynolds’ account that the sight and hearing she experienced was deeper and fuller than waking sight. As opposed to the muddled or compromised perception we would expect from somebody on the brink of death, those who have experienced OBE / NDE tend to report improved perception and awareness.

In a similar vein, Staume refers to his hypothetical second dimension of time as recall, and suggests that one could travel forward or backward in time. He suggests that we would only be able to relive these experiences, as opposed to interacting with them, thus avoiding grandfather paradoxes. IOW, we might go back in time, but could not change it. Staume’s idea has the added bonus of being less Newtonian:

We would probably be able to relive each and every detail, and see and feel the experiences of our past over and over again… [65]

This partially coincides with my beliefs about the afterlife, too. I firmly believe that at some point after death, each of us are going to see how our choices have affected others. I believe there will be an accounting demanded for our time and our words, and again, we find a correlation between Staume’s theory and NDE. The so-called “life review” is prevalent in NDE literature. People have reported experiencing exactly what Staume’s theory predicts.

Again and again while describing dreams, Staume’s language corroborates OBE / NDE:

Even if we do perceive a normal flow of time, waking can feel like being pulled back from immersion in a movie to observing it in the cinema… [66].

This is also exactly what Pam Reynolds and others have described. Towards this end, Staume gives another comparison:

Imagine that you’re traveling by train through the countryside, looking through the window and watching the changing landscape. This is analogous to our experience of one dimension of time; we see an ever-changing present, the future’s unseen in front of us, and the past has disappeared behind us. Now, smash the window and stick your head out–that’s what an additional dimension of time would do. At the beginning of the analogy we were watching the changing landscape, but when we stick our head out, we realise that it’s not the landscape that’s changing–it’s our perspective. We realise that the future–the landscape ahead of us–already exists, and the past–the landscape behind us–doesn’t disappear, it just gets further away [67].

While reading the chapters for this installment, I noticed that I’d marked “NDE” in the margin at least a half-dozen times. NDE corroborates much of Staume’s theory, and I’ve had personal experiences that correlate with it as well. Sure, these experiences are subjective, but when the object of evaluation is human consciousness itself, do we have a choice?

Now, for the bad part. Elsewhere in the series, I’ve complained about Staume’s willingness to depart from conservatively stated claims, and Chapter 10 contains no shortage:

[knowing the likely mechanism of an afterlife] demonstrates, yet again, how ill-equipped religion is to answer the profound questions of life. … A rational understanding of an afterlife demonstrates that most of the religious notions of life after death are false. The Inside-Out Theory shows that the concept of external judgment is false, because there is nothing arbitrary about the laws of physics. It shows that the concept of an eternal Hell is false, because finite causes have finite results and there is no external judgment [76].

Given Staume’s good behavior earlier, this blatant overconfidence comes as a bit of a surprise. His theory doesn’t show any of these things. As interesting as it might be, the Inside-Out Theory is nowhere near intact enough to sustain such strong claims. The way I see it, instead of refuting traditional religious concepts, much of his groundwork supports them: everything from seeing the future, to additional dimensions of space / time, to reliving life experiences. The major difference is that God is taken out of the picture, and the afterlife is referred to as “rational” and relying only on the “laws of  physics.”

For me the question becomes: how does this square with evolution and physics? Why would nature evolve an afterlife? If we remove God as the sustaining force of the universe, upon what does all this intricacy rest?


13 comments

  1. clamat

     says...

    @cl

    As with Sabom’s book, I haven’t read Staume’s, so you’ll correct me if I’m getting your presentation of Staume’s propositions wrong, or am attacking unmade arguments. That said, Staume’s speculations strike me as exactly that, speculation based on nothing more than the fact that dreams, well, feel weird.

    The idea is that we dream in an expanded geometry with additional dimensions of time and space.

    It certainly feels like our dreamworlds (sometimes) have an “expanded geometry.” But your statement suggests Staume believes that when we dream we are actually somehow placed in a different realm with actual, additional dimensions of space and time. Is this accurate?

    If so, what evidence does Staume offer to think that what things “feel like” in dream actually indicates an extra-dimensional reality? Does he attempt to derive this extra-dimensional reality formally in any way, e.g., mathematically, or does he just simply “posit” it, as you suggest?

    Similarly:

    [The] part of the book [discussing the fourth spatial dimension of rotation is a bit hard to follow, but at the same time, the ideas don’t strike me as any more bizarre than quantum tunneling.

    This seems like the mirror-image of an argument from personal incredulity: “At first blush it’s no more bizarre than “X”, therefore it’s equally plausible.” But relative “bizarreness” at first blush isn’t the question. I may not understand the mathematics and physical evidence that people claim supports the notion of quantum tunneling, but I do know there’s ton of it. Does Staume’s offer evidence for another “rotational” dimension other than “dreams feel weird”?

  2. cl

     says...

    I’ve been wondering why so few people comment on this series. I find the book interesting, and this section seems to fit well into the discussion on disembodied minds.

    clamat,

    …your statement suggests Staume believes that when we dream we are actually somehow placed in a different realm with actual, additional dimensions of space and time. Is this accurate?

    That’s what I took from it. If not, then I suppose he intends those passages metaphorically.

    …what evidence does Staume offer to think that what things “feel like” in dream actually indicates an extra-dimensional reality?

    I’m hoping he elaborates in Section 2. Thus far, the idea is simply posited as logically possible. I get the feeling he was trying to demonstrate plausibility in Section 1.

    This seems like the mirror-image of an argument from personal incredulity: “At first blush it’s no more bizarre than “X”, therefore it’s equally plausible.”

    Well sure, that would be a mirror-image of an argument from personal incredulity. The pivotal factor is whether or not the claimant uses credulity / incredulity to affirm / deny a proposition. I didn’t, and that’s also where you and dguller went wrong here. Spetzler couldn’t possibly invoke his incredulity to affirm the proposition. That’s why I wasn’t “all over him” for arguing from incredulity: because he didn’t.

    Does Staume’s offer evidence for another “rotational” dimension other than “dreams feel weird”?

    Thus far the writing seems intended to demonstrate plausibility. I’m not sure what other lines of reasoning and/or evidence Staume will avail himself to as the book progresses.

  3. DoubtfulAtheist

     says...

    “If we remove God as the sustaining force of the universe, upon what does all this intricacy rest?”

    Why do we need to assume God for this intricacy? Why can’t we just assume the existence of spiritual realm? And if a God must exist to oversee said realm, what would make it the Christian God?

    Sorry for my vague language. I might be bastardizing the content, but I am just curious to hear your response. I have no doubts now that there are dire problems in materialism that will never be reconciled, but converting to theism still seems unreasonable to me at this point.

  4. cl

     says...

    DA,

    Why do we need to assume God for this intricacy?

    In a strict sense, we don’t. However, the person who accepts the traditional, materialist, evolutionary paradigm would seemingly be at a loss to explain the efficacy of a spiritual realm. That’s what I was getting at. In fact, Staume’s approach does seem to assume a godless spiritual realm.

    For me at least, the problem is the same as in the material plane: where did that spiritual realm come from? To posit a godless spiritual realm seems to simply push the question of ultimate causality back a notch. Although, this might bear out differently than its material counterpart, because the laws of physics might not apply. I should think about that some more.

    …converting to theism still seems unreasonable to me at this point.

    What’s getting in the way? Is it an intellectual hurdle? Unanswered questions? The sheer fact that we have a gazillion supposed “gods” to choose from? Personally, I could see all of those as legitimate hurdles.

  5. clamat

     says...

    @cl

    The pivotal factor is whether or not the claimant uses credulity / incredulity to affirm / deny a proposition. I didn’t[.]

    Thus far, the idea is simply posited as logically possible. I get the feeling he was trying to demonstrate plausibility in Section 1.

    So what was the point of your comparison with quantum tunneling? To suggest Staume’s hypothesis is as plausible as that of quantum tunneling? If so, the comparison definitely does not suggest an argument based on incredulity: It suggests simple credulity.

    Logical “possibility” does not demonstrate “plausibility,” and the initial “plausibility” of Staume’s hypothesis is based on vague and unsupported assertions that we “know” certain things. Most significantly:

    “Because we know that additional dimensions increase the ways that we can join things, we can predict that fewer dimensions would involve the loss of interrelationships; things would become disjointed and lose their internal logic–which is exactly what happens when we try to remember our dreams” (Emphasis added.)

    What does “join things” mean? “Join” how, exactly? What “things,” exactly? What “interrelationships,” exactly? Whatever these terms mean, exactly, how exactly do we know adding dimensions beyond the four we experience in our waking life increases the ways that we can “join things”? Maybe the four dimensions we currently experience are the only four that it is possible to “join,” which is exactly why we are able to experience them as four-dimensional creatures. Maybe other dimensions are strictly mathematical, and no dimension greater than Four bears any actual, practical “interrelationship” to any other?

    See, I can speculate, too.

    More importantly: The subtitle of the book is (in part) “The odds of an afterlife: Reasonable.” I appreciate you’ve only offered a synopsis here, and maybe you’ve elided it, but I don’t understand (and Staume doesn’t suggest) how an extra-dimensional dreamworld in any way supports the likelihood of an afterlife. Any idea how Staume proposes to get from “dreams feel extradimensional” to “there likely is an afterlife”?

    (Another thing to consider as you read further, and following Joyce’s lead: What happens to our minds when we are sleeping, but not dreaming? Are they…nowhere? If the fact that after we fall asleep sometimes we dream somehow suggests that after death we enter a dream-like afterlife, why doesn’t the fact that most of our sleep time is spent simply “off” suggest that, after we die, we are simply “off” permanently?)

    In sum: It’s not clear how why Staume thinks that what dreams “feel like” suggests something about the likelihood of an afterlife. So far it appears Staume just assumes an afterlife, and speculates as to what it’s like, based on unsupported, quasi-scientific assertions about “other dimensions.”

  6. cl

     says...

    So what was the point of your comparison with quantum tunneling?

    To highlight the fact that weirdness of an idea is no reason to discount it.

    Logical “possibility” does not demonstrate “plausibility,”

    Can that which is plausible be logically impossible? If no, then it seems logical possibility is a prerequisite for plausibility.

    What “interrelationships,” exactly?

    Do you deny that 3D entails more possible interrelationships between objects than 2D? Likewise, Staume simply reasons that 4D would entail more possible interrelationships between objects than 3D.

    Any idea how Staume proposes to get from “dreams feel extradimensional” to “there likely is an afterlife”? … So far it appears Staume just assumes an afterlife, and speculates as to what it’s like, based on unsupported, quasi-scientific assertions about “other dimensions.”

    Now here, we can agree. No, I don’t know how he crosses that bridge, and, like I said, that’s what I’m hoping section 2 will be about. Personally, I’m skeptical, because people often use “more likely” as a handy euphemism for “I prefer.” Although, I think his assertions about other dimensions are more than quasi-scientific.

  7. clamat

     says...

    Can that which is plausible be logically impossible? If no, then it seems logical possibility is a prerequisite for plausibility.

    Yes. But my original point still stands. “Logical possibilty” covers virtually every fanciful speculation. It’s logically possible aliens from the planet Ventaxis froze the doctors and nurses, brought Pam out of the anesthesia just a touch, flew her about the room while simulating the nurse’s voice, and then put her back under.
    Put another way: “Logical possibility” is a pretty low bar. Maybe the lowest bar. “Plausibility,” on the other hand…

  8. cl

     says...

    Not sure what your “yes” was meant for. Are you saying that which is plausible can be logically impossible? Or, are you agreeing with me that logical possibility is a prerequisite for plausibility? I suspect that latter, but don’t want to assume.

    How do you define plausibility?

  9. clamat

     says...

    I meant to agree with you, logical possibility is a prerequisite for plausibility.

    plausible: facially credible

    There are degrees, of course. Your claim to be a screenwriter is plausible. A claim to be Charlie Kaufmann, however, would be much less plausible. Totally possible, but not very plausible.

    A claim to be Paddy Chayefsky, however, would be highly implausible. Not impossible, but highly implausible. You’re going to have to show me something pretty extraordinary to become more plausible (forget probable, which would require even more showing).

    Claims of the afterlife are claims to be Paddy Chayefsky.

  10. cl

     says...

    There are degrees, of course. Your claim to be a screenwriter is plausible. A claim to be Charlie Kaufmann, however, would be much less plausible. Totally possible, but not very plausible.

    Can you explain how that works? Are you basically just going off the odds that there are X screenwriters, but only 1 Kaufmann?

    Claims of the afterlife are claims to be Paddy Chayefsky.

    If I had a dime for every implausible claim that turned out true, I’d be a lot more wealthy than I am now. Airplanes, telephones and space flight were all “highly implausible” a century or two ago. Claims of the afterlife don’t strike me as highly implausible at all. This seems to be nothing more than a subjective standard you set for yourself, and I don’t see why you think I ought to hold your standard, especially since you’ve offered nothing to back it up.

  11. Jonathan

     says...

    I think David Staume has hit on something so important for those people who are ridiculed from both sides – theists and non-theists. Afterlife (which I prefer to call not being annihilated) has always seemed to play a huge role in theistic identity since it was assumed that if one had no belief in God, then a natural consequence of that was to have no belief in some kind of post-death existence. I think David gives a voice of reason to those of us who have a hard time explaining ourselves – that we see little evidence and have little desire for God but who believe that consciousness is a distinct entity, separate from the physical body/brain.

  12. cl

     says...

    Hi jonathan. Thanks for the comment on this series. I love it when somebody comes and cracks one off on an old post. It’s funny, because as I type to you, I have Staume’s book on the desk. Just last week I decided I should finish the series, because I’ve never finished a single book review series yet! Embarrassing.

    I perceive that you’re an atheist. Honestly, I was questioning the efficacy of finishing this series. “Why bother?” I asked myself. Yet, your comment shows that there’s a good reason: perhaps opening a staunch atheist’s mind to the afterlife could be the key to the door to Messiah.

    Very thought provoking, if nothing else. Thanks again, and feel free to share more.

  13. Jonathan

     says...

    Hi CL, thanks for the reply. To be honest, I’m not exactly sure what I think about God. Having grown up a Catholic, there were elements in my education that frightened me – they weren’t ones of scruples and sinfulness and damnation; it was the notion that this life and the afterlife exist for the express purpose of glorifying God and that the human bonds we form on earth will cease to be of importance to us after death because we will be enveloped in God’s love with all of our needs met. To some that is heartwarming – to me it is dehumanizing and sort of like Invasion of the Body Snatchers. And I don’t believe it.

    Needless to say, it took me a long time to escape the dark cloud in those messages. As I’ve delved into science in my adult life, I have definitely come to the conclusion that there is no “proof” for God’s existence. But of course, that depends on how you define proof. There are only mathematical proofs. Now whether the wonders of the Universe or the systematic organization within living creatures is evidence of a God, I don’t know. That’s quite subjective.

    I do believe though that the study of the human brain has provided compelling evidence not for disproving the “soul” but rather for supporting dualism. When I think of sleep and dreams, parts of the brain are shut down and yet the mind in that state is highly active and can bring a person more life clarity and affirmation than wakefulness. I also believe that psychic phenomena are real, that minds communicate on another dimension. Energy is real and just because these energies of the mind are not currently categorized and lack measurement tools doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

    Does this require a God? Maybe in the context of a 3D existence since time (presumably the 4th dimension) is measurable and palpable and our cognate on this plane adheres to sequencing, namely a BEGINNING (ie God). But on another dimension, which I think could be the mind, this requirement for a beginning may cease. Eternity is unfathomable and overwhelming, but that involves time. Outside of this dimension though, it may also be a non-entity.

    Sorry if I’ve rambled. But that is where I am right now… ;)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *