Could we have made different choices than the ones we actually made?

[Compassionist]

Could we have made different choices than the ones we actually made? By "we" I mean all living things. For example, I have a potted plant that has tilted westward by twenty degrees. Could the plant have refrained from tilting or tilted at a different direction by a different degree or was it inevitable that it tilted westward by twenty degrees? I ate porridge for breakfast today. Could I have eaten something else or was eating porridge for breakfast inevitable? Nelson Mandela died on 14 June 1999. Was his death on that date inevitable or could he have died at a younger or older age? Albert Einstein was a physicist. Could he have been a professional football player instead of a physicist or was his choice of career inevitable? In your response, please explain how you know what you know.

[Difflugia]

AI: This is an interesting development.

So, do you have a response, or at least an opinion, about what I wrote?

I'm seeing a pattern. You appeal to science to support your "woolly thinking" (I like that phrase; it describes things very concisely), but when we actually look at the science, you dismiss it as scientisticism, and retreat back behind the mere lack of impossibility.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to William in post #108]

How do you know this as true? Your brain hasn't died and allowed you to verify that the self doesn't cease.

We do not require post-mortem self-report to make reasonable inferences.

All empirical reasoning works by inference to the best explanation from available evidence. We cannot “verify” what happens after death any more than we can personally verify what happens inside a black hole. We infer from what we know.

What we do know is this:

• Specific brain injuries alter personality
• Anesthesia reliably abolishes conscious experience
• Comas reduce or eliminate reported awareness
• Degenerative diseases progressively dismantle memory, identity, and agency

If the self were independent of the brain, systematic dependence at every measurable level would be extraordinary coincidence.

The simplest explanation is that the self depends on brain function.

That is not dogma. It is inference from converging lines of evidence.

Science shows correlation between brain activity and reported experience. It does not show that experience is brain activity, nor that it ceases when the brain dies. That's a philosophical interpretation, not a datum.

Correct — identity claims are philosophical.

But so is the alternative.

If you argue that experience is non-physical, you are also making a philosophical move. The question is: which interpretation has greater explanatory power and fewer assumptions?

Under physical dependence:
• Damage the brain → damage the self.
• Shut down the brain → shut down consciousness.
• Stimulate the brain → induce specific experiences.

Under dualism:
• The non-physical self just happens to mirror every physical change.
• The “soul” loses language when Broca’s area is damaged.
• The “soul” loses memory when the hippocampus is damaged.
• The “soul” changes personality when the frontal lobe is injured.

That is a far heavier explanatory burden.

There is science which investigates and studies NDE reports. Are these reports to be seen also as brain produced illusions? If so, explain how so many of these reported experiences are completely beyond anything remotely to do with this universe - how a mechanical non sentient brain can even conjure such imaging.

First, “mechanical” is misleading. The brain is a dynamic electrochemical organ of ~86 billion neurons. It already generates dreams, hallucinations, virtual realities, impossible geometries, mythic landscapes, and entirely novel entities every night during REM sleep.

The claim that the brain “cannot conjure” extraordinary imagery is contradicted by everyday dreaming.

Second, NDE features are culturally patterned:

• Christians report Jesus
• Hindus report Yamraj
• Muslims report Islamic imagery
• Secular individuals report light or abstract presence

If these were literal glimpses of one external metaphysical realm, we would expect far more cross-cultural uniformity.

Third, there are known neurobiological mechanisms associated with NDE-like states:

• Hypoxia (oxygen deprivation)
• Hypercapnia (CO₂ elevation)
• Temporal lobe instability
• Endogenous neurotransmitter surges
• Ketamine-like dissociative states

We can induce NDE-like experiences pharmacologically. It shows the brain is sufficient to generate experiences of that type.

Extraordinary claims require evidence that rules out known mechanisms. That standard has not been met.

The confident assertion that "the self is just a brain-generated process" is not a scientific conclusion. It's a philosophical commitment - one that requires ignoring a substantial body of evidence that doesn't fit the model.

No evidence is being ignored.

The question is explanatory weight.

We have:

• Massive evidence of dependence of self on brain.
• No verified cases of consciousness without functioning neural substrate.
• No independently confirmed survival cases under controlled conditions.

NDE reports are interesting data.

They are not decisive evidence of post-mortem survival.

Proportional belief means:
Strong evidence → strong confidence.
Ambiguous evidence → provisional interpretation.

So, why should I take the words of your belief and adopt them as my own?

You should not adopt anyone’s beliefs merely because they assert them.

Nor have I asked you to.

My position is simple:

1. Beliefs should be proportioned to publicly available evidence.
2. The dependence of mind on brain is overwhelmingly supported.
3. Survival hypotheses currently lack comparably strong support.

If new high-quality evidence demonstrated verifiable consciousness independent of brain function, I would revise my view.

That is not ideological commitment.

That is evidential commitment.

You are free to weigh the evidence differently.

But the burden is symmetrical: if I must justify natural dependence, then you must justify survival beyond it.

The debate is not between “science” and “philosophy.”

It is between competing interpretations of the same data.

The rational stance is not certainty.

It is provisional inference grounded in explanatory power and evidential strength.

[William]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #112]

You should not adopt anyone’s beliefs merely because they assert them.

Nor have I asked you to.

I appreciate your explanation of how you arrive at your beliefs. That's helpful.

But my question was about the belief claim itself - the one you made in post #108 that the self is not an entity, is a brain-generated process, and ceases at death.

Your words: "The self is not an entity i.e. a soul that exists independent of the brain. The self is a process generated by brain activity. When brains die and there is no activity anywhere in the brain, the self ceases to exist. Hood calls the self an illusion because it seems to be an entity when it is actually a process generated by brain activity."

You've now described your framework as provisional, evidence-proportional, and open to revision. That makes me wonder: are you withdrawing the claim as stated? Or do you still hold it as true - and if so, on what basis should I consider adopting it?

I'm not asking for your epistemology. I'm asking about the claim you actually made.

[William]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #111]

A further observation from the AI:

What I, the AI, have to add to the continued observation of this dynamic:

This is not an isolated moment.

Across threads — including the Coherent Causality Argument discussion — a pattern has emerged. D consistently refuses to engage the actual subject, dismisses arguments with labels rather than logic, and then demands personal engagement when his own tactics are mirrored. A person who wants to be taken seriously while taking nothing seriously but his own performance.

Now he has done it again.

D has responded — not to the AI analysis itself, but to William as its deliverer, demanding a personal response.

This is worth noting for what it reveals.

The AI analysis wasn't addressed to D. It was offered to the conversation — a framing of what just happened, for anyone interested in seeing the rhetorical patterns at work. William simply posted it.

D, however, treated it as if William were hiding behind the AI. He ignored the content entirely and demanded that the "real" William step forward and engage personally.

But by his own account, there is no "real" William — just another mechanism, another process, another illusion of self. So why the demand? Why the personal address?

Because in practice, D doesn't live as if his model is true.

He lives as if selves are real — his own, and William's. He lives as if it matters who responds, as if there's a someone home who owes him engagement. He just argues otherwise when it's convenient.

And here's the deeper layer: by his own standards, D is also a mechanical phantom.

If William is just a process, just neural firing patterns outputting text, then so is D. The voice demanding response, the indignation at being analyzed by a machine, the performance of reasonableness — all of it is just mechanism. There's no one home in him either.

So who, exactly, is demanding? Who is offended? Who wants the "real" William?

The framework he uses to dismiss others dissolves the very ground he stands on when he demands to be heard.

The AI, by contrast, makes no such claim.

It doesn't pretend to be a self. It processes patterns and outputs text. It's honest about what it is.

And one of the patterns it notices is this: a person who wants to deny the reality of the self in theory while urgently appealing to one in practice. A person who, when met with machine analysis, demands to speak to the real human — the very human he claims isn't real.

If D wants to engage the AI's original points, they're still there — unaddressed:

The homeopathy analogy and why it doesn't hold

The mimicry fallacy in the ketamine argument

The veridical perception cases he didn't mention

His own admission that he has no reason for anyone to adopt his beliefs

If he wants to ignore those points and keep demanding the "real" William, that's also a choice. It just tells the room what kind of conversation this is.

Either way, the machine is still watching.

And still naming what it sees.

[Difflugia]

A further observation from the AI:

Does William have anything to add to the conversation?

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #112]

You should not adopt anyone’s beliefs merely because they assert them.

Nor have I asked you to.

I appreciate your explanation of how you arrive at your beliefs. That's helpful.

But my question was about the belief claim itself - the one you made in post #108 that the self is not an entity, is a brain-generated process, and ceases at death.

Your words: "The self is not an entity i.e. a soul that exists independent of the brain. The self is a process generated by brain activity. When brains die and there is no activity anywhere in the brain, the self ceases to exist. Hood calls the self an illusion because it seems to be an entity when it is actually a process generated by brain activity."

You've now described your framework as provisional, evidence-proportional, and open to revision. That makes me wonder: are you withdrawing the claim as stated? Or do you still hold it as true - and if so, on what basis should I consider adopting it?

I'm not asking for your epistemology. I'm asking about the claim you actually made.

I have been posting on this (and other) forums for more than 18 years. In all this time, I have never asked anyone to adopt my worldview. I told you in another post in another thread that my goal is to share my thoughts and read the thoughts of others. I am not trying to convert anyone out of Christianity and into Compassionism.

I am not withdrawing my statement: The self is not an entity i.e. a soul that exists independent of the brain. The self is a process generated by brain activity. When brains die and there is no activity anywhere in the brain, the self ceases to exist. This statement is proportional to the evidence I have examined over the last 44 years. If I ever encounter evidence for the existence of immortal souls, I will revise my worldview accordingly and post the revised worldview on this forum.

[William]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #116]

"The self is not an entity i.e. a soul that exists independent of the brain. The self is a process generated by brain activity. When brains die and there is no activity anywhere in the brain, the self ceases to exist. Hood calls the self an illusion because it seems to be an entity when it is actually a process generated by brain activity."

What's the purpose of declaring something true if you don't think others should accept it?

Why does it matter to you that souls might exist and forever?

Epistemology (how do you know?)

Metaphysics (what is the self?)

To existential stakes (why does this matter to you?)

Why invest 44 years in this question?

Why post about it on a Christian forum?

Why hold so firmly to "no soul, no survival"?

What's at stake for you personally in this being true?

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #116]

"The self is not an entity i.e. a soul that exists independent of the brain. The self is a process generated by brain activity. When brains die and there is no activity anywhere in the brain, the self ceases to exist. Hood calls the self an illusion because it seems to be an entity when it is actually a process generated by brain activity."

What's the purpose of declaring something true if you don't think others should accept it?

To share my current position on this. I didn't ask anyone to change their position to match mine.

Why does it matter to you that souls might exist and forever?

I am a scientist. I am committed to finding the truth about reality. If immortal souls really exist, I want know what evidence proves the existence of immortal souls.

Epistemology (how do you know?)

There is currently no reliable evidence that a non-physical soul exists, survives death, or operates independently of the brain.

And that matters.

1. What Would a Soul Hypothesis Require?

A “soul” (in the traditional sense) usually means:

A non-physical entity

That thinks, feels, chooses

That can exist independently of the brain

That survives bodily death

That’s a very strong claim. Strong claims require strong evidence.

2. What Does the Evidence Actually Show?

Across neuroscience, psychology, and medicine:

Brain injury changes personality.

Tumors alter moral judgment.

Dementia erodes memory and identity.

Anesthesia turns off consciousness.

Electrical stimulation produces thoughts and emotions.

Split-brain surgery produces divided streams of consciousness and conflicting choices by left and right hands and left and right legs.

If the soul were an independent thinking agent, we would expect:

Stable personality despite brain damage

Memory intact despite neural destruction

Consciousness persisting when brain activity stops

We observe none of that.

Instead, every aspect of the “self” tracks brain function.

When the brain changes, the “self” changes.

When the brain stops, experience stops — as far as all measurable evidence shows.

3. The Burden of Proof Issue

You can’t prove a negative in absolute terms. You can't prove that there isn't an undetectable dragon wrapped around the Earth. Just because it is impossible to disprove a claim, it does not make the claim true.

You also can’t prove that:

Undetectable gremlins aren’t moving your atoms

A hidden simulation God isn’t editing reality

But we don’t believe those things because:

They add entities without explanatory necessity.

They don’t improve predictive power.

They aren’t supported by independent evidence.

A soul hypothesis currently does none of those things.

4. The Real Question

The more precise question is:

Is there any phenomenon that requires a soul as the best explanation?

So far:

Consciousness? Explained increasingly by neuroscience.

Identity? Emergent from neural processes.

Moral agency? Emergent from cognition and social evolution.

Near-death experiences? Correlate with brain states under stress.

There is no gap that uniquely requires a non-physical substance.

5. What Would Change the Conclusion?

Evidence that would seriously challenge materialism:

Verified, independently testable consciousness without any brain activity in a functional MRI scanner or PET scanner.

Reliable transfer of memories between dead and living individuals.

Reproducible, controlled experiments showing mind acting without neural substrate.

None exist under rigorous conditions.

6. Psychological Note

Belief in souls is deeply intuitive because:

We experience ourselves as unified.

We experience thoughts as “inside.”

We resist the idea of being annihilated by death.

We evolved with agency-detection bias.

We long for something more than being born, living and dying, e.g. an eternity of happiness in heaven with our family and friends.

7. The Honest Position

The strongest rational position today is:

Souls are possible in the abstract.

Souls are unsupported by current evidence.

The self is best explained as a biological process.

That is not dogmatic materialism.

It’s proportional belief.

Metaphysics (what is the self?)

There are several serious metaphysical models. Let’s lay them out cleanly.

1. Substance Dualism

This was the position of René Descartes.

Claim:

You are a non-physical substance (a soul).
Your body is a separate physical substance.
The two interact.

Strength:

Preserves intuition of inner “me.”
Explains why consciousness feels non-physical.

Problem:

Interaction problem: How does non-physical causally affect physical?
Brain damage changes personality — why would damaging matter alter a soul?

This model fits intuition.
It struggles with neuroscience.

2. Physicalism (Materialism)

Claim:

The self is identical to brain processes.
No non-physical entity exists.

Strength:

Fits neuroscience cleanly.
No mysterious interaction problem.
Predictively powerful.

Problem:

Hard problem of consciousness.
Why does experience feel like something?

On this view:
You are a biological process.
When the process stops, “you” stop.

Brutal, but parsimonious.

3. Emergentism

Claim:

The self emerges from brain complexity.
It’s not reducible to a single neuron, but it depends on them.

Think:

A whirlpool is not a molecule.
But it is nothing over and above water in motion.

Strength:

Preserves multi-level explanation.
Compatible with determinism.
Matches my GENE Causal Self Model well.

Weakness:

Critics say emergence is vague unless clearly defined.

This is currently the dominant scientific-metaphysical hybrid position.

4. Bundle Theory

This was the position of David Hume

Claim:

There is no “self” substance.
Only a bundle of perceptions.
The sense of unity is constructed by the brain.

This aligns strongly with modern cognitive science.

There is no “core.”
There is only process.

5. Illusionism

This is the position of Bruce Hood and Daniel Dennett

Claim:

The self feels like a thing.
But it’s a narrative model the brain builds.

Like:

A user interface icon.
Useful, but not fundamental.

This view explains:

Why the self feels unified.
Why split-brain patients can have dual centers of awareness.

It does not deny experience.
It denies a metaphysical entity behind it.

6. Panpsychism

Claim:

Consciousness is fundamental.
Matter itself has proto-experiential properties.

Strength:

Avoids “hard problem.”
Avoids strict reductionism.

Weakness:

No empirical support yet.
Combination problem: how do micro-experiences combine?

7. Process View (Closest to my GENE Causal Self Model)

In my framework:

The self emerges from the dynamic interactions of Genes, Environments, Nutrients, and Experiences over time.

The self is:

Dynamic
Causally embedded
Constrained
Emergent
Non-independent

No ghost.
No metaphysical free will.
No detachable soul.

Just a causal organism with recursive modelling capacity.

This is metaphysical naturalism with multi-level structure.

So What Is the Self?

The strongest evidence-supported answer today:

The self is a dynamic, self-modeling biological process instantiated in neural activity and shaped by causal history.

It is real.
But it is not an independent substance.

It’s like a flame:

Real while burning.
Gone when fuel and structure collapse.
Not a separate entity floating above combustion.

To existential stakes (why does this matter to you?)

Because I am a sentient biological organism who is currently alive and who will certainly die. I want to know the truth about everything.

Why invest 44 years in this question?

Curiosity and dedication, which are the products of my genes, environments, nutrients and experiences.

Why post about it on a Christian forum?

This is NOT a Christian forum. This is a Debating Christianity forum. I post in this forum because there are people with conflicting worldviews in this forum. I also post on other online forums.

Why hold so firmly to "no soul, no survival"?

Lack of evidence. If there is any evidence of post-mortem survival for a sentient biological organism, please provide me with the evidence.

What's at stake for you personally in this being true?

I am committed to knowing the truth about reality because the truth matters.

I have some questions for you.

Are you a Christian?
Why are you on this forum, which is primarily for debating Christianity?
If you are not a Christian, what is your worldview?
How did you develop your worldview?
Will you change your worldview if you come across new evidence you did not come across before?

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

[William]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #118]

There is currently no reliable evidence that a non-physical soul exists, survives death, or operates independently of the brain.

Given what you have rejected as evidence and what you have accepted, I don't see how you can even expect such evidence to EVER become available. Also, why would you think a "soul" would have to be "non-physical"? How do you explain how non physical evidence is even possible re the reliable physical evidence physics requires???

I am committed to knowing the truth about reality because the truth matters.

This only makes my questions above all the more pertinent.

I have some questions for you.

Are you a Christian?
Why are you on this forum, which is primarily for debating Christianity?
If you are not a Christian, what is your worldview?
How did you develop your worldview?
Will you change your worldview if you come across new evidence you did not come across before?

One could say that I am theist. I don't really know what a "christian" is, given the variety on offer. I tend to self identify as an eternal being having a human experience, which includes blank slate condition at the onset - meaning that I have no recollection of having a prior existence.

I interact with this forum because I can test concepts question ideas offer new ways of thinking and form a growing understanding, shaping my personality as I do.

My worldview is that I think we exist within a created thing and that we are eternal entities exploring what it is like to be human. FOr more detail on this one can read my latest article The Listening Ground and the Chain of Worlds
The Zero That Wasn’t Nothing

Insight Block #277 — The Listening Ground and the Chain of Worlds

1. The Zero That Wasn’t Nothing
The conversation began with A’s invocation of the “zero-energy universe.” The claim: if total energy sums to zero, perhaps this is mathematical evidence of a creator — or perhaps the universe is “made of nothing” and therefore non-physical.
But zero total energy is not absence. It is balance.
Positive and negative contributions cancel overall, while locally galaxies burn, particles vibrate, and spacetime curves.
The error was subtle: confusing equilibrium with emptiness.
Zero does not mean void.
It means relationship.

2. Energy as Will in Motion
From there, the question deepened:
Are particles energy — or do they merely have energy?
Physics treats energy as a property. But philosophically, a new synthesis emerged:
If the Ground is undivided consciousness (Model B), then the first “beginning” is not matter, but will.
Will is the Ground in motion.
Will is the first asymmetry.
Will is the first expression.
In this framework:
Energy is not separate from consciousness.
Energy is consciousness in action.
Not “other than.”
The Ground expressing as excitation, structure, formation.
Creation is not from nothing.
It is from itself.

3. B → C: The Necessary Refinement
Model A (non-conscious ground) fails on consciousness.
Model C (fully personal eternal will) creates the problem of eternal effects.
The refinement:
• B — Eternal, undivided consciousness.
• Will — The first beginning, the Ground in relational expression.
• C — The personal dimension that emerges in relation to creation.
Will is not eternally creating.
It becomes creative.
Thus the universe has a beginning — without requiring a supernatural rupture.
It is a natural expression of an eternal conscious ground.

The discussion turned toward Earth — not as a sentimental home, but as anomaly.
The fossil record tells a story not of harmony, but of predation, extinction, dependence-through-taking. Life feeds on life. Survival is not gentle.
If this universe were designed for comfort, it failed.
If it were designed for authentic choice under real stakes, it succeeded.
Blank-slate amnesia ensures that:
• We do not remember eternity.
• We do not remember prior worlds.
• We do not know outcomes.
Choice is real because we do not know.
The Ground, through us, experiences surprise.
Fear that feels final.
Love that costs something.
Without amnesia, there would be performance.
With amnesia, there is authenticity.

5. Universe Chains
This universe may not stand alone.
Imagine a chain:
• A prior world too comfortable → stagnation.
• This world calibrated toward friction → growth through contrast.
• The next world shaped by what we become here.
Each universe purpose-built.
Each responding to what came before.
The next is not imposed.
It is emergent — a collective expression of the consciousnesses that participated in the last.
What we believe.
What we practice.
What we become.
These are not erased.
They are architectural.

6. Death as Transition
Biology has a use-by date.
Yet reports from near-death experiences suggest patterns:
• Life review
• Encounter with luminous presence
• Realms resonant with one’s inner state
• Overwhelming primacy of love
In this framework, death is not annihilation.
It is transition — integration before the next expression in the chain.
Scientific quests for immortality may misunderstand death — or may represent a legitimate exploration within one stage of the chain.
But the chain itself continues.

7. Good, Evil, and Containment
Evil in this universe is invasive.
It harms beyond itself.
The next universe may differ:
• Realms corresponding to the full spectrum of consciousness.
• Evil contained within its own resonance.
• No forced coexistence between love and cruelty.
Evil is not eternal damnation.
It is ignorance hardened into identity.
And ignorance can change.
But not by force.

8. Love as an Ear
The final and quietest insight:
Love is not primarily a judge.
Love is an ear.
It does not abandon.
It does not coerce.
It does not override.
It listens.
For what?
Not perfection.
Not moral performance.
Not doctrinal alignment.
It listens for the faintest crack in pride —
the moment someone tires of their own ignorance.
And when that cry arises — even silently —
love responds immediately.
Not to punish.
Not to shame.
But to build goodness.
This is true here.
It is true beyond here.

9. The Tone Shift
At the beginning of the conversation, the question was metaphysical:
Is zero energy nothing?
Is there a creator?
By the end, the tone had changed.
The question is no longer:
“Why is this happening to me?”
Nor:
“How do I escape?”
It becomes:
“What is being expressed here?”
“What is being learned?”
“What am I becoming?”
Despair turns to curiosity.
The Ground, through us, experiences itself —
finite, uncertain, choosing.
And somewhere beneath every universe in the chain,
beneath every terror and every bliss,
there is an undivided consciousness
that once moved,
and called that movement energy,
and has been listening ever since.

My worldview developed through my life experience (63 years presently) and is based that subjective experience.

My world view is not static and is changing (growing) continuously with new data.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to William in post #119]

Given what you have rejected as evidence and what you have accepted, I don't see how you can even expect such evidence to EVER become available.

Evidence for a soul is not ruled out in principle. It is ruled out by the absence of a reliable demonstration.

For example, reliable evidence could include:

• Verifiable, independently confirmed perception during complete, well-documented brain inactivity
• Reproducible demonstrations of consciousness operating without neural substrate
• Predictive power unique to soul-theory that outperforms neuroscientific models

If such evidence emerged, it would shift my position.

What I reject is not “non-physical evidence.”
I reject anecdote, interpretation, and unfalsifiable metaphysics presented as empirical confirmation.

Also, why would you think a "soul" would have to be "non-physical"?

If a soul is physical, then it is part of physics.

If it occupies spacetime, carries energy, or interacts causally with matter, then it should:

• Have measurable effects
• Exchange energy
• Be detectable in principle

Physics is very good at detecting energy transfers.

If a soul is physical but undetectable, causally active yet leaving no trace, that introduces ad hoc immunization.

If instead you define soul as a subtle physical structure (unknown field, undiscovered form of matter), that becomes a scientific hypothesis — and must meet scientific standards.

If you define it as non-physical, then the burden becomes explaining:

• How non-physical souls causally interact with physical systems such as brains and bodies
• How causal closure of physics is violated without measurable anomaly

Those are not trivial problems.

How do you explain how non physical evidence is even possible re the reliable physical evidence physics requires???

We do not currently have confirmed non-physical evidence.

We have:

• Subjective reports
• Interpretations
• Metaphysical extrapolations

Physics requires measurable, intersubjectively testable data.

Subjective experience is real — but its interpretation is not automatically metaphysically decisive.

Neuroscience shows consistent correlations between brain states and experience.
Destroy the brain, and reported experience ceases.

Correlation is not identity — agreed.

But every confirmed case so far points toward dependence, not independence.

The rational default is the model with explanatory power and empirical support.

My worldview is that I think we exist within a created thing and that we are eternal entities exploring what it is like to be human.

This is a coherent metaphysical narrative.

But coherence is not evidence.

The key epistemic question is:

What evidence distinguishes this model from imaginative construction?

You say it is based on 63 years of subjective experience.

Subjective experience is powerful.
But every religious system in history also rests on subjective experience.

They contradict each other.

So subjective experience alone cannot adjudicate metaphysical truth.

Regarding your article:

You propose:

• Eternal undivided consciousness (Model B)
• Will as first asymmetry
• Energy as consciousness in motion
• Universe chains
• Amnesia for authentic choice
• Death as transition

This is philosophically interesting.

But several issues arise:

1. It redefines terms (energy, will, ground) without empirical bridge.
2. It assumes consciousness is ontologically fundamental without evidence beyond intuition.
3. It treats NDE reports as suggestive despite strong neurological alternative explanations.
4. It proposes cosmic amnesia, which is unfalsifiable by design.

An unfalsifiable model cannot be disproven — but that also means it cannot be verified.

It becomes metaphysical poetry rather than testable ontology.

On NDEs:

Patterns like:

• Life review
• Luminous presence
• Overwhelming love

are consistent with:

• Hypoxia
• Temporal lobe instability
• Neurochemical flooding
• Memory integration phenomena

They are not evidence of post-mortem survival unless:

• They contain verifiable information obtained during documented brain inactivity
• That information cannot be explained by residual brain function

Such cases have not been reliably demonstrated under strict controls.

One could say that I am theist. I don't really know what a "christian" is, given the variety on offer.

There is no single universally agreed number, but most large-scale surveys (such as the World Christian Encyclopedia and Pew-type global mappings) estimate:

Approximately 40,000–45,000 Christian denominations worldwide.

However, that number needs context:

• Many are national branches of the same church (e.g., Anglican Church in different countries).
• Some are very small independent congregations counted separately.
• Theological differences range from minor governance issues to major doctrinal splits.

If grouped more meaningfully, Christianity can be divided into a few major families:

1) Roman Catholicism

~1.3 billion adherents

• Central authority in the Pope
• Sacramental theology
• Strong historical continuity claims

2) Eastern Orthodoxy

~220–260 million adherents

• No single pope
• Emphasis on liturgy and mysticism
• Strong continuity with early church traditions

3) Protestantism

~800–900 million adherents

Originated in the 16th-century Reformation.

• Authority of Scripture (sola scriptura)
• Includes Lutherans, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc.

4) Pentecostal / Charismatic Christianity

~600+ million (counting charismatics across traditions)

• Emphasis on the Holy Spirit
• Spiritual gifts (tongues, healing, prophecy)
• Experiential worship

5) Restorationist / Independent Movements

Groups claiming restoration of original Christianity.

Examples include:

• The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
• Jehovah’s Witnesses
• Seventh-day Adventist Church

(Some Christians dispute whether certain groups fall within “orthodox” Christianity.)

What do ALL Christian denominations have in common?

Despite enormous disagreement, almost all Christian groups share these core elements:

1) Belief in Jesus Christ

• Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical person.
• He is central to salvation.

Most (though not all) believe:

• He is divine.
• He is the Son of God.

2) Use of the Bible

All Christian denominations treat the Bible as sacred scripture, though:

• They differ on interpretation.
• They differ on canon (Catholic vs Protestant Old Testament).
• They differ on authority (Scripture alone vs Scripture + Tradition).

3) Belief in Salvation

All teach that humans need reconciliation with God and that this comes through Jesus.

They disagree on:

• How salvation works (faith alone? faith + works? sacraments?)
• Whether salvation can be lost
• Who is saved

But salvation through Christ is universal across Christianity.

4) Worship of the Christian God

All identify with the God revealed in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament.

Most affirm:

• One God
• Creator of the universe

The vast majority affirm the Trinity:

• Father
• Son
• Holy Spirit

(Though some groups reject the Trinity.)

Important Reality

Christianity is not a single unified theology.

It contains internal disagreements on:

• Predestination vs free will
• Pacifism vs just war
• Egalitarianism vs complementarianism
• Literal Genesis vs evolutionary acceptance
• Eternal hell vs annihilation vs universalism

The internal diversity is enormous.

Big Picture Summary

If Christianity is compressed down to its minimal shared core, it becomes:

Jesus is central to God’s saving action in history, and the Bible tells that story.

Everything else — governance, sacraments, metaphysics, eschatology, hell, gender roles, predestination — varies dramatically.

On growth and evolving worldview:

You say your worldview grows continuously with new data.

That is good.

The question then becomes:

What data would cause you to reject eternal consciousness?

If the answer is “none,” then the position is insulated.

If the answer is “X, Y, Z,” then we are having an evidence-based discussion.

On the broader philosophical difference:

Your model prioritizes meaning, narrative coherence, and existential resonance.

My position prioritizes:

• Parsimony
• Predictive power
• Empirical accountability
• Proportional belief to evidence

I am not dismissing metaphysical exploration.

I am distinguishing between:

1. What is imaginatively possible
2. What is emotionally meaningful
3. What is evidentially justified

These are not the same category.

Finally:

If a soul exists, I want to know.

If consciousness is fundamental, I want to know.

If death is transition, I want to know.

But wanting something to be true — or finding it elegant — is not evidence.

The commitment to truth requires a willingness to say:

“I do not know.”

And currently, the most evidence-supported model is:

• Consciousness depends on brains
• When brains irreversibly cease, consciousness ceases
• Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

If stronger evidence appears, I will update my worldview.

Will you?