Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body
Does the conclusion follow, that is, I'm interested in knowing where the argument fails, if it fails at all.
Before I put forth the argument, which is based on testimonial evidence, I want us to clarify several points.
First, that testimonial evidence is a valid way of justifying one's conclusions, and moreover, one's beliefs. Most of what we know comes from the testimony of others. Thus, it's a way of attaining knowledge.
Second, since the argument will be based on testimonial evidence, and given that testimonial evidence is notoriously weak, what criteria makes testimonial evidence strong?
Third, if testimonial evidence is of something out of the ordinary, say extraterrestrials or something mystical, then it would seem to follow that the evidence would require a higher standard than what is generally required of good testimonial evidence.
Fourth, since the argument falls under the category of metaphysics, how do we understand what is meant by reality? I'm a later Wittgensteinian when it comes to understanding words, that is, I don't believe there is a definition or theory that will cover every use of certain word (for example, words like real or reality). However, I don't believe Wittgenstein was correct in his assumption that the mystical can only be shown (prayer and meditation for example) and not talked about in terms of what's true or false. Wittgenstein believed this in his early and later philosophy, which is one of the reasons why he was against arguments for the existence of God. Although he was sympathetic to man's reach for the mystical, which is why he didn't agree with the logical positivists.
In the next post I will describe what I believe to be the ingredients of strong testimonial evidence. I'm interested in all comments, but I'm especially interested in the comments of those of you who have a strong background in philosophy, and also in the related sciences.
I will present the argument after we clarify these foundational issues, at least provide some clarification.
Before I put forth the argument, which is based on testimonial evidence, I want us to clarify several points.
First, that testimonial evidence is a valid way of justifying one's conclusions, and moreover, one's beliefs. Most of what we know comes from the testimony of others. Thus, it's a way of attaining knowledge.
Second, since the argument will be based on testimonial evidence, and given that testimonial evidence is notoriously weak, what criteria makes testimonial evidence strong?
Third, if testimonial evidence is of something out of the ordinary, say extraterrestrials or something mystical, then it would seem to follow that the evidence would require a higher standard than what is generally required of good testimonial evidence.
Fourth, since the argument falls under the category of metaphysics, how do we understand what is meant by reality? I'm a later Wittgensteinian when it comes to understanding words, that is, I don't believe there is a definition or theory that will cover every use of certain word (for example, words like real or reality). However, I don't believe Wittgenstein was correct in his assumption that the mystical can only be shown (prayer and meditation for example) and not talked about in terms of what's true or false. Wittgenstein believed this in his early and later philosophy, which is one of the reasons why he was against arguments for the existence of God. Although he was sympathetic to man's reach for the mystical, which is why he didn't agree with the logical positivists.
In the next post I will describe what I believe to be the ingredients of strong testimonial evidence. I'm interested in all comments, but I'm especially interested in the comments of those of you who have a strong background in philosophy, and also in the related sciences.
I will present the argument after we clarify these foundational issues, at least provide some clarification.
Comments (1503)
First, a high number of testimonials gives a better picture of the events in question. So the greater the number the more likely we are to get an accurate report, but not necessarily, i.e., high numbers don't always translate into accurate testimonial evidence, which is why one must also consider other important factors.
Second, seeing the event from a variety of perspectives will also help to clear up some of the testimonial reports. For example, different cultural perspectives, different age groups, different historical perspectives, different religious perspectives, different times of the day, and even considering people with different physical impairments (like the blind) will help clear up some of the biased and misremembered reports.
Third, is the consistency of the reports, i.e., are there a large number of consistent or inconsistent reports. While it is important to have consistency in the testimonial evidence, inconsistency doesn't necessarily negate all of the reports. When dealing with a large number of testimonials you will almost certainly have contradictory statements, this happens even when people report on everyday events. Thus, one must weed out the testimony that does not fit the overall picture, and paint a picture based on what the majority of accounts are testifying to. It doesn't necessarily mean that what the minority is saying is unimportant, only that accuracy tends to favor what the majority are reporting.
Fourth, can the testimony be corroborated by any other objective means, thereby strengthening the testimonial evidence as given by those who make the claims.
Fifth, are the testimonials firsthand accounts, as opposed to being hearsay. In other words, is the testimonial evidence given by the person making the claim, and not by someone simply relaying a story they heard from someone else. This is very important in terms of the strength of the testimonials.
Each of these five criteria serve to strengthen the testimonial evidence. All of these work hand-in-hand to strengthen a particular testimonial conclusion, and they serve to strengthen any claim to knowledge. If we have a large enough pool of evidence based on these five criteria we can say with confidence that the conclusion follows. In other words, we can say what is probably the case, not what is necessarily the case.
What other criteria would help to strengthen testimonial evidence?
I would expect some way of weighting the reports by the circumstances of the witnessing. At a baseball game, 30,000 fans might think the runner was clearly out at second, but none of them had as good a view as the umpire standing five feet away watching the play. In turn, if the umpire was poorly positioned, a crew of umpires watching video from another angle might be better placed to make the right call.
After that shaggy dog story you didn't even say what you're posting about?
An inauspicious start.
The Inductive Argument:
The following argument is based on the testimonial evidence of those who have experienced an NDE, and the conclusion follows with a high degree of probability. As such, one can claim to know the conclusion is true. This argument makes such a claim.
Each of the aforementioned criteria serve to strengthen the testimonial evidence. All of the criteria in the previous paragraphs work hand-in-hand to strengthen the conclusion, and these criteria serve to strengthen any claim to knowledge. If we have a large enough pool of evidence based on these five criteria, we can say with confidence that we know that consciousness survives the death of the body. In other words, we can say what is probably the case, but not what is necessarily the case.
Again, if there is a high degree of probability that these testimonials reflect an objective reality, then we can also say with confidence, that we know consciousness survives the death of the body. Thus, our knowledge is based on objective criteria, not on purely subjective claims.
We will now look at the testimonial evidence in terms of the five stated criteria, and how these testimonials support the conclusion.
First, what is the number of people who claim to have had an NDE? According to a 1992 Gallop poll about 5% of the population has experienced an NDE; and even if this poll is off by a little we are still talking about hundreds of millions of people. Thus, the number of accounts of NDEs is very high, much higher than what we would normally need to decide the veracity or accuracy of the testimonials, and much higher that what is normally needed to draw a proper conclusion.
Also, as was mentioned in the previous post, numbers in themselves are not enough, which is why the other criteria must be coupled with numbers.
The second criteria of good testimonial evidence is variety, i.e., do we have evidence from a variety of sources? The answer to this question is in the affirmative. NDEs have been reported in every culture from around the world, which by definition means that we are getting reports from different religious views, and different world views. NDEs also span every age group, from young children, to the middle-aged, and finally to the aged. The testimonial reports come from doctors, nurses, scientists, atheists, agnostics, literally from every imaginable educational level and background. NDEs occur in a variety of settings, including drowning, electrocution, while awake, while on the operating table, after a heart attack, etc. People have also reported having shared an NDE with someone else, although rarely. They have happened when there is no heartbeat, with the blood drained from the brain, and with no measurable brain activity. They have been reported to happen with a minimal amount of stress, i.e., without being near death. Finally, there have been many thousands more reporting these and similar events happening to those who have taken DMT (N,N-Dimethyltryptamine), which is an illegal schedule 1 drug. These DMT reports are also reports that are happening without being near death.
The third criteria is scope of the conclusion, and the scope of this conclusion is limited to consciousness surviving the body. The conclusion claims that we can know that consciousness survives bodily death.
The fourth criteria is truth of the premises. To know if the premises are true we need corroboration of the testimonial evidence, a high degree of consistency, and firsthand testimony. In all or most of these cases, it seems clear that we have all three. We have millions of accounts that can be corroborated by family members, friends, doctors, nurses, and hospice workers. Corroboration is important in establishing some objectivity to what is a very subjective experience. It lends credence to the accounts. One example of corroboration is given in Pam's NDE out of Atlanta, GA, which can be seen on Youtube.
Consistency is also important to the establishment of the truth of the premises. We have a high degree of consistency across a wide variety of reports. What are these consistent reports?
1) Seeing one's body from a third person perspective, i.e., from outside one's body, and hearing and seeing what's happening around their bodies.
2) Having intense feelings of being loved, and also intense feeling of peace.
3) Seeing a light or tunnel in the distance and feeling that one is being drawn to the light, or moving through the tunnel towards the light.
4) Seeing deceased loved ones.
5) Seeing beings of light that one may interpret as Jesus, Mary, Muhammad, an angel, or just a loving being that one may feel connected to.
6) Heightened sensory experiences, viz., feeling that one is having an ultra real experience, as opposed to a dream or a hallucination.
7) Communication that happens mind-to-mind, not verbally.
8) Seeing beautiful landscapes.
9) Seeing people who are getting ready or waiting to be born.
10) Having a life-review by a loving being who is not judgmental in any way, but simply showing you how important it is to love, and the importance of your actions on those you come in contact with.
11) Feeling as though one has returned home. This is also confirmed by people who were told they chose to come to Earth.
12) A feeling of oneness with everything, as though consciousness is at the bottom of everything.
13) Memories of who they really are return, as though they temporarily forgot who they were, and where they came from.
14) There are also reports of knowledge returning, and many questions being answered.
15) Understanding that ultimately we cannot be harmed.
16) That we are eternal beings simply entering into one of many realities.
These are just some of the reports from those who experienced an NDE, and some of these reports are confirmed by those who have taken DMT.
Another aid in establishing the truth of the testimonial evidence are firsthand accounts, as opposed to hearsay. There are literally thousands of firsthand accounts being reported by the International Association of Near Death Studies. And according to polling, there are hundreds of millions of firsthand accounts of NDEs.
The fifth criteria is cogency of the premises. Whether the argument is cogent for you depends on many factors, but many people have heard of near death experiences, so the concept is not an unfamiliar one. It is not going to be cogent for everyone, but with a little study and reading it can be cogent. It is not difficult to understand the concept. Although it is probably going to be difficult to understand how it is metaphysically possible. This argument is claiming that it is highly probable that consciousness survives the death of the body, and that the conclusion is very strong based on what makes for strong inductive arguments.
The further claim of this argument is that I know that I know the conclusion is true. Is it possible the conclusion is wrong? Of course it is possible, but we do not want to base a belief on what is possible, but on what is likely the case. All kinds of things are possible, but that does not mean we should believe them.
The following is a deductive proof.
So how would I construct a proof? It is very simple. The following is a deductive argument based on the evidence of the inductive argument.
Modus Ponens:
(1) If it is true that NDE reports are accurate, just as any veridical experience is, then consciousness survives the death of the body.
(2) It is true that NDE reports are accurate, just as any veridical experience is.
(3) Conclusion: Consciousness survives the death of the body.
As with any deductive argument all you have to do is dispute any premise, i.e., show that any premise is not true.
I believe the inductive argument is more apt to be believed, so it is a stronger argument in some ways.
This I don't see.
Death is the most extreme trauma one's body can suffer. What you have are reports of living people who experienced this extreme trauma.
What you do not, and presumably cannot, have are reports from disembodied consciousnesses.
I understand that the claim is that, perhaps for several minutes, someone's consciousness persisted during a period when their body met one or another definition of death. But you do not, and presumably cannot, have reports from people made during this period. You can only have the reports of those who were revived.
Those who were revived suffered extreme trauma. Isn't the most natural assumption that such a traumatic experience would leave traces? Wouldn't a neuroscientific explanation be the most natural?
First, there are just too many reports of people seeing things from a perspective that is outside their body; and many of these reports are from a perspective that is nowhere near their body, that is, seeing and hearing things that are many miles away from their bodies.
Second, there are instances where there is no measurable brain activity, and even if you want to claim that there may be residual traces of neuro activity, that wouldn't explain how it is that people are claiming that what they're seeing and hearing is more vivid than the reality they are use to. It would seem to follow that if there are only traces of neuro activity, instead of full blown neuro activity, we could conclude reasonably that whatever they're experiencing would be less vivid and more dreamlike than normal reality. How does one explain what they are experiencing in terms of a brain that has no measurable activity? Moreover, when you say "leave traces" what does that mean? Because traces of neuro activity is certainly far from normal neuro activity, and these reports make claims that point to heightened sensory awareness, not dumbed-down sensory experiences.
I have found no neuroscientific explanation that would explain these experiences. In fact, Dr. Eban Alexander who is a neurosurgeon couldn't explain his NDE in terms of what he understood about the brain.
Only that the brain is a pretty complex chemical environment. Who knows what the body might do when experiencing that degree of trauma. And then once blood has stopped flowing, various molecular machines stop doing their jobs as they run out of fuel. When you "reboot", I would expect the whole system to be a mess, and certainly not a typical environment for the brain of a living body. The bizarre chemical imbalances are what you wake up in since there's been no cleaning up going on.
The Wikipedia article describes many unusual circumstances -- injection of ketamine, oxygen deprivation, etc., etc. -- that reproduce some of the features of NDEs. It's clear that monkeying with the brain's chemistry can produce all sorts of effects. I'd just assume all sorts of such monkeying takes place in the moments leading up to and in the moments just after death.
Is it not perhaps more prudent to boil these experiences down to the baseline feeling - how did these experiences make them feel? Much of what you describe sounds pretty cozy to me, and is line with what I've heard about the massive flood of endorphins that happens near death.
Out of body experiences fall right into this category when in the room. The ears are passively picking up sound, the occipital lobe is trying to put an image to it.
There is also the expectation that they did see something. Perhaps they may choose to interpret their feelings in line with what their expectations are?
Having said that, I have heard some pretty whacky stuff too often throughout my life about clocks stopping, people knowing of a death at a distance - people with nothing to gain by saying so and a lot of credibility to lose.
Its a great mystery, and a great topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXE34msT0lE
What makes any sensory experience accepted by others? What makes it accepted by others is that it fits within a certain framework of objective experience, which bring me back to how testimonial evidence gets its strength. I don't think it's correct to assume that a particular experience is not real or not objective because it doesn't fit a particular world view. It's the evidence that should be considered, and nothing else.
Ok, well, how dogmatically they cling to the claim even when everyone else thinks they're nuts might be a good place to start, especially when they stand to lose something by saying so and have nothing to gain.
It's hard to trust someone who uses "thus" twice in three sentences. :p
More than 50% if the world (at least) believes there is a god of some kind.
Quoting Sam26
I really like this regard for a multitude of perspectives.
Quoting Sam26
I believe consistency is a fundamental attribute of fair judgment.
Quoting Sam26
Sorry, just thinking this would make an awesome short poem.
Quoting Sam26
I have mixed feelings about this concept. The Bible says there is wisdom in a multitude of counselors, and yet, it also suggests that there is no substitute for personal conviction. Even if all but one human on the planet believed a lie, that one person would still be justified.
Quoting Sam26
When Jesus argued with the pharisees, they rebuked him for testifying of himself and having no second witness (which was required by their law). He acknowledged that there was no human who could accurately testify to his divinity, and instead said that the miracles he performed were his second witness; how could he do all those things if he was not from God? (that was his argument in this case).
Quoting Sam26
Interpretation of reality is ultimately held by the individual. We may choose to believe testimony by someone else, but that is a choice we make, even if it is a wrong choice. We are responsible for that choice.
To be honest, what Jesus said really doesn't concern me in terms of this argument.
I don't think you can convince me by the method you propose that there is life after death, but I'm willing to give you a chance. If that's going to happen, you have to do a better job of presenting your argument. You speak vaguely of millions of people, common experiences, diversity of sources, etc., etc., etc. That's not the way it works.
Be specific. Reference studies, not anecdotal reports. Describe procedures, summarize statistics. They should be studies by credible sources trained in the kind of data gathering that is needed. You're right, testimonial evidence is unreliable. People can be fooled, deluded, drunk, or dishonest. It happens all the time. They can be heavily influenced by a desire for attention or a strong prejudice. That makes it more important that the people gathering the data are reliable.
You really haven't presented any argument at all so far.
The argument said that testimonial evidence can be unreliable, but that it can also be strong based on certain criteria. The argument showed how the testimonial evidence in this argument is strong. So based on the strength of that criteria one could reasonably conclude that consciousness does survive bodily death.
And yes, that is the way testimonial evidence works. So if hundreds and thousands of people are making consistent claims about their experiences you require more evidence? You require more because no experience that seems to run counter to your beliefs would satisfy you.
The argument did not show anything about the testimonial evidence. You sort of gave us the gist of your understanding. I didn't respond when you made your claim about the five criteria. I'll respond now - I think testimonial evidence is always suspect, but if you want me to believe it, show me that the information was collected under reasonably controlled conditions by reasonably qualified people from reasonably documented sources. I might be willing to settle for kind of controlled conditions by kind of qualified people from kind of documented sources, but I don't even have that.
Quoting Sam26
You say "hundreds and thousands of people are making consistent claims about their experiences." Show me evidence of that. Where did you get the information? How was it gathered? By interviewing people? How long after the experiences were the interviews done? By whom? What was their relationship to the issue? You talk about consistency - show me evidence that the experiences reported were as consistent as you say.
These requirements are not unfair or unreasonable. The rule is - if you have an extraordinary claim, you need extraordinary evidence. You haven't really presented evidence at all. As far as I can tell, when I ask "how do you know?" you say "Somebody told me," or "I just have a general impression." How did you get the information? What books did you read? What journal articles?
You need to be more specific. Are you talking to me or Sam26?
Either way, how does what you've written move the discussion forward?
There have been quite a few books written over the years on this subject, and many of these books were based on eyewitness accounts, that is, interviews with people who have had the experiences. One of the first books on the subject was written by Dr. Raymond Moody called Life after Life where he interviewed people who have had the experience. That people have had the experience most people don't doubt, mostly people try to explain the cause of the experience on hallucinations or some other causal factor. However, hallucinations tend to be person relative, that is, if people by the thousands or millions are seeing the same things that's not a hallucination. How does one explain the video example in my earlier post by saying that is a hallucination?
Address the argument in my post. The argument stands on it's own. Don't tell me it's not a good argument. I'm quite familiar with good arguments. The argument is inductive based on testimonial evidence.
It's quite true that you need extraordinary evidence. That's why there is so much evidence presented. I don't know of many stronger testimonial arguments than this.
You have not presented any evidence at all to support the claim that NDEs are caused by the consciousnesses leaving the body. None at all. All you did was try to pathetically stack the deck in favor of your "testimony" while overlooking the one of the most basic principles in science: Observation does not prove causation.
Before you try to act scientific maybe learn the very basics of science.
http://bolt.mph.ufl.edu/6050-6052/unit-2/causation-and-observational-studies/
I don't know of any evidence of any kind about the nature of consciousness other than we experience it.
Sam26 is making a good faith effort to use reason to address and issue. He and I are having some disagreements, but that's how it works. You are not contributing to the discussion.
Don't care.
You are one making a huge deal over the observational, trying to act all formal. I think with my statement you realized the giant gap in your assessment and now you are back peddling. You now want it to be less formal. That is what people like you do, when you realize that your "mountain" of evidence is really just a pile of BS you become wishy washy.
How about you address my central point, that you have no evidence at all of a cause effect relationship.
I think I have been addressing the arguments in your post. You identify five factors that make testimonial evidence credible:
I can understand your frustration with my approach. I haven't even addressed the content of your argument or tried to provide explanations for your claims. I don't have a great deal of knowledge about the neurological, anatomical, or physiological characteristics of the brain and mind under stressful conditions. That's a fair point, but you haven't convincingly demonstrated there is any phenomenon to explain.
If one wishes to engage in the exploration of consciousness then when must observe it directly in its totality. Consciousness is part memory and memory survives as in what is referred to as inherited, inborn, innate, traits.
Hi T Clark, there was a doctor of sorts on TV talking a few months back. He said he'd spent his life working with patients on the edge of death (actually physically recording their brain wave activity). He was wearing a white coat, so I assume he was telling the truth.
Anyway, he said that often after the brain waves go flat and the person is 'dead' there is a sudden flash of brain wave activity that can go on for quite a few seconds. I wish I knew this OP was coming up, I might have paid more attention to the name of the show.
He said, that during his lifetime there had been several occassions when the patient, being dead, had suddenly sat bolt upright in bed and stared ahead. He said the eyes weren't blank, like the eyes of a dead fish (I'm paraphrasing), he said they were definitely looking at something. There was something in their visual field. Then they collapsed back down dead again.
How's that? Second hand testimonial evidence from the TV should never be doubted, but seriously, it does make you think. And while we're on testimonial evidence, when my Great Grandmother?? passed, my Grandmother went out and starting hosing the garden at that exact time. It was 4am, and when my Pop asked her what she was doing, she replied, "She's dead." Weird huh? She had been in hospital.
I'll tell you another story, knowing how much you like testimonial evidence :). I was working many years ago putting insulation in people's ceilings. I came down and looked at the elderly guy's clock on the wall. It had stopped. I said to him 'Hey, you know your clock has stopped?"
He said, "Yeah, my wife went on a cruise two years ago. Up until that time the clock had never missed a beat. She had a heart attack and died. The clock stopped on that day and time of death was what's on the clock." Of course, maybe the fact it had never missed a beat just meant it was due for a battery change.
I'm interpreting the OP an the other posts you have made as invitations to analyse whether the testimony of people who have NDEs is sufficient to conclude that they are experiencing something real or actual. IE: that the self reported content of the NDE is real in the same sense that 'I see the door to my house and it's really there' is real. I'll call this property 'veridicality' of the NDE.
So, how can the veridicality of the NDE be established? One necessary condition for their veridicality would be to see if the experiences within the NDE obtain in a majority of experiences. If you take people to the door of your house, most people would see the door - if most people didn't see the door, then I think it would be grounds to doubt that there was a door. If I saw the door, and most people didn't, then I would have grounds to doubt that my experiences containing the door were veridical.
IE, if most people do not experience a specific NDE event (like love or disembodiment, in the list of 15) given that they have had an NDE and that they have almost died, then there's grounds for doubting the veridicality of the experience. 15% of people have had an NDE in those conditions in America according to a Gallup poll, of these 9% reported the classic out of body experience, 11% said they had entered another realm and 8% had encountered otherworldly beings. Assuming these categories are independent and exhaustive, you can obtain that 72% of people who had an NDE experienced nothing contained in the list or nothing at all. I'd be surprised if they were exhaustive, but it still looks like the majority of people who had an NDE couldn't categorise it according to listed tropes in the poll OR alternatively they nearly died and experienced nothing.
However, this doesn't mean 'nothing is going on', I'm reminded of 'the dress' perceptual illusion that was commonplace on the internet a few years ago. There were consensus views that it was white and that it was dark blue. I think it would be quite silly to argue whether it was really white or really dark blue, the far more likely occurrence is that there is some mental or perceptual event that induces the different colours in different people.
I believe this is analogous - there is no majority consensus on 'what happens during an NDE', and no experiential consensus (a long list of alternatives) on what the contents of the NDE are. I therefore believe it's likely that NDEs are the result of some currently not understood mental or perceptual event that need not correspond with anything 'out there'.
It's true that most people who are near death, or have had some experience that brings them near death don't experience any of the listed testimonial reports. However, I don't see how this negates the millions of consistent reports of those that have. All of us have experiences that most people haven't had, that doesn't mean that my experiences are any less real, or that my reports of those experiences are doubtful in the same sense you're doubting NDEs. You seem to be concluding that because more people haven't had the experience that that somehow makes the millions of experiences of those who have had the experience doubtful. It does raise questions, I agree, but I don't see that it means that what people are experiencing in these NDEs is any less veridical.
For example, less take our experiences in everyday life, if I'm at a party with 100 other people and 15 of these people claim that X happened, and that those closest to the experience or who claim to have had the same experience agree that X happened, then your claim is that X probably didn't happen. Your claim is based not on counter-evidence, but on the fact that the 85 other people at the party didn't report those same experiences, or that they have no recollection of X happening. But all they are saying is that they didn't have the experience. If they had the experience and reported completely different reports, then I would say that you have an argument, but that's not what their saying. Their saying, I was at the party but didn't experience what those 15 people experienced.
Being near death doesn't always bring on the experience. I think that's the most you can say about your argument. Besides being near death is not a near death experience. What I mean is this, an NDE is defined as having, for one thing, an out-of-body experience. If your near death and don't experience the out-of-body experience, then you haven't had an NDE in the sense I'm talking about. All of the reports are about OBEs, not just being near death. It's like my example, they were at the party, but weren't in the living room to experience what the 15 experienced.
Your using the term NDE to refer to any experience that bring one close to death, or even brings one to the place where there is no measurable brain or heart activity. This is definitely one of the uses of this term. However, there is another use of the term that includes an out-of-body experience, and this is the way I'm using the term NDE.
I appreciate you taking the time to respond fdrake.
I have listened to him before, but didn't see that video. Thanks MikeL. I'm going to post this link in another thread too.
I agree that a raw proportion of people not having NDEs isn't good evidence that NDEs content is non-veridical. I'm glad of your example because it picked up on several ambiguities in my response.
I'm not referring to the raw proportion of people who have had NDEs vs those who have not had NDEs, I'm referring specifically to the people who have had NDEs and then self report content given the Gallup poll results. If you look at the numbers in my response, you'll see that the % reports from the subjects who have had NDEs (otherworldly experiences etc) sum to more than the % of people in the general population that have had NDEs in the first place. This is 28% vs 15% from the same poll.
The relevant situation to consider is the conditional event: what are the people reporting given that they self identify as having had an NDE. In your party example, 15 people claiming that X happened is ok - since if we want to learn about the event X, we are considering self report of people who have already seen X, not the 85 people in the party who didn't.
My argument turns on this idea of conditional reports. I can state it more precisely now, with reference to the previous 'door seeing' example. Say there are 200 people in my door seeing study. I only expose 100 of them to the door. I then record self reports of whether they see the door or not. I think if this experiment was conducted, close to 100% of the people who saw the door would say that there was a door then, this makes the condition probability of seeing the door given being exposed to the door close to 100%. I am claiming this is good evidence because of high consistency in the reports of people who have been exposed to the door. It is irrelevant that 50% of the people in the study didn't see the door.
So let's apply this to NDEs, do we observe very consistent regularity in the reported content of people who have experienced NDEs? No, there are many different stories. This means that exposure to an NDE doesn't (probabilistically) entail having a particular experience. Whereas exposure to the door does (probabilistically) entail seeing the door.
This is where my analogy of 'the dress' comes in. Exposure to the dress generates disjoint perceptions - the dress is really blue vs the dress is really white. What we can say about the evidence here is that of the people seeing the dress, people will see a blue OR white dress - a disjunctive event -
with high probability. Similarly, of those who have self reported mystical content of NDEs, we can say there is a high probability of a disjunctive event - namely at least one of the things on your list.
As an aside, that the % of people who responded who had NDEs with self reported content categorised by the poll was only 28%, this is evidence that being exposed to a near death scenario will not necessarily generate a near death experience. This would be similar to being exposed to 'the dress' and seeing no colour, but that is absurd.
So what we can conclude from the testimony is that people who identify as having NDEs and who self report mystical experiences will have at least one of 15 mystical themes in it. Evidence for the disjunctive event isn't evidence for the veridicality of experiencing any disjunct, rather like in the dress example. This leads me to conclude that:
1) There are general themes within NDEs for those who self report content.
2) There is no evidence that exposure to near death generates a particular NDE.
3) From 2), there is no evidence that the perception of a given NDE type is veridical.
You can also conclude from the similarity of the experiences of NDEs and certain psychoactive drugs that there are unobserved factors mediating the relationship between the mystical experience being near death. We are in the same situation with regards to the dress, there is an unobserved perceptual/mental/neuro-chemical event that gives rise to the disjunction blue/white rather than any of the specific disjuncts. IE it is more likely that an unobserved factor drives the appearance of the disjunction than the truth of any disjunct. In stark contrast to the door situation.
So to sum up your position, if I understand it correctly, you're basically saying that the reports are not consistent enough to make the claim that they are seeing X. I would say that your analogy is not quite the same kind of experience. First, the experience is much more complex than seeing a door. The experience is more akin to the following: Let's assume we have a 100k sq. ft. building, and let us further assume that we interviewed 100 people who just left the building, people exiting from different doors, and some exiting from the same doors. As in any complex experience, where we are observing things from a variety of positions and perspectives, we are going to get a variety of reports and experiences. The question arises, how do we know based on so many different experiences and reports that all 100 people were in the same building? The only way to know would be the consistency of the reports, that is, a large number of people would have to be reporting some of the same things. It would be like putting the pieces of a puzzle together. As each report is made we begin to see that a particular picture of the building emerges, and based on the consistency of the reports we can draw conclusions about the building based on that picture.
My own studies have included between 3500 and 4000 reports, which is a fairly large sampling. It has also included talking with people who have had the experience. I have found that although there are differences in the reports, there are also enough similarities to give credence to what people are reporting. Not only have I concluded based on these studies that there are enough consistent reporting to warrant my conclusions, but others who have studied the same material have also concluded the same thing.
Fdrake, if you have time, watch the video that MikeL provided a link to in the post above, and tell me what you think. Your responses are the kind of responses I was looking for.
I'm reminded of Gettier - what are the chances that someone's NDE contains information they 'could not have known without an out of body experience' by accident? IE, what are the chances that an NDE can be judged as veridical purely through sample size effects?
So I think it's appropriate to look at phenomena which would allow an NDE to be judged as veridical. Namely, if someone provides a description of the NDE and if this description matches a video record. What properties of a description make this likely, without reference to the causal mechanism of being out of body? Well, there are a few things that can increase the probability that a description matches some things in the videos.
(1) The NDE experience contains vague rather than precise descriptions of events. This is the case for the woman in the video's NDE-perception of a 'tooth-brush like device' in the room, which could fit any tool with a mechanical base and rotating upper part. This could describe lots of surgical tools. I'm not saying this is necessarily the case for every report as I'm sure there are very precisely described events in some NDE accounts that match the videos quite faithfully.
I think it would be fair to remove these cases from the veridical NDEs, since a trained liar could produce these statements. Such as 'there were at least 15 people in the room', 'there was a scalpel used by a woman to make an incision around my head". This may account for the woman in the video's 'there are 20 doctors' in the room statement, but we cannot obtain information one way or the other without access to her first description of the event [which was articulated with the doctor, so there is confounding].
(2) There is some prior knowledge about the procedure. This is usually the case, since participants will have a rough description of the procedure's goals, risks and benefits before deciding whether to have the procedure. I don't think testimony could distinguish a mental event stimulated by memory of the procedure's description causing a 'recollection' or 'NDE observation' during the procedure. This could account for the woman's perception of someone saying 'the veins are too small' [the video doesn't say that a specific woman actually said this, only that they had difficulty cutting some of the veins due to the size]. 'The veins are too small' might also be a likely phenomenon when doing vascular surgery on the small veins in the brain!
This should be used to rule out descriptions of events that can be accounted for through memory rather than through NDE since testimony cannot allow us to observe the causal mechanism (I think this point was made obtusely by Jeramiah earlier in the thread). The causal mechanism being 'this person is having a veridical NDE'. This wouldn't rule out all descriptions of things in the procedure - for example a doctor who entered's hairstyle could be a part of the perceptions in the NDE, and the hair-style is unlikely to be part of the priming. I know there are cases of things like this.
(3) A veridical NDE should be treated like a test for confusion/awareness. Someone is asked to recall various facts about themselves and their immediate environment. If someone, say, could tell there was a tree in the window but forgot their name they would be judged as experiencing confusion. Multiple correct answers to the right questions (a temporal order) are required for an NDE to be judged as veridical.
Applying these filters to your data should give you candidates for veridical NDE assessment. After applying these filters, I believe a very small number of cases will remain.
So, how about a positive criterion? For an NDE to be considered veridical, it should contain multiple correct observations of documented events in the correct order. I believe this is a fair criterion, since veridical perception usually occurs along with a temporal order of events. There are numerous things to control for:
(A) Whether an observation is correct or incorrect should be judged from a written version of the NDE experience made independently from discourse with another observer of the event. This prevents priming effects.
(B) The subject should be in deep anaesthesia to prevent non-NDE perceptual events.
When these have been removed, there should be a small proportion of people who have experienced things which can be used to make a case for veridicality. But - a small proportion is exactly what is expected purely through chance. I'd make a ballpark estimate (asspull) that 1 in 5000 NDE descriptions would have at least two correct precise ordered descriptive elements in them that cannot be accounted for by any of the above filters.
And we would be left with the conclusion that the vast majority of NDE events are not connected in some way post-filtering to the real world. By the previous argument I made, I believe this would show that NDE perceptions are not veridical.
Edit: I wrote the previous post with reference to videos as independent observers, but other sources of independent verification would suffice.
Even if NDE reports were universally consistent and produced successful remote viewing, that would only imply that the laws of physics and the body were more complicated than we previously thought them to be.
But how could even that possibility entail a leap to the conclusion that consciousness is now transcendental and independent of the body under it's revised definition?
The definition of a "dead" person would still remain the same, namely a person who doesn't wake up from an NDE to give remote viewing reports. "Dead" people would therefore still fail to produce successful remote viewing accounts as they always have done, while only the "living" who returned from an NDE would share their veridical and consistent accounts of remote viewing.
NDEs whether consistent, inconsistent, "hallucinatory" or "veridical" cannot have metaphysical implication for consciousness to become detached from the body, because behaviourism always revises its definitions so that "consciousness" and "body" coincide.
Your first three paragraphs provided the level of detail I was talking about in my posts. You articulated it much better than I did. I appreciate that.
Fair enough, we should all be open to revising our world views as the arguments and evidence support doing so. However In this case, there is a huge conceptual hurdle to overcome.
What would it mean for consciousness to be disembodied? You mention that people report having seen their bodies while experiencing an NDE, overhearing conversations and what not. That is very interesting.
But let's think about it. If your consciousness becomes disembodied, then you no longer experience the world through your sensory organs. So what does it mean for a disembodied consciousness to "see" or "hear"?
Let's say for sake of argument that you can see and hear without a body. Okay, but what is that like? Do the NDEs report seeing their body as if they have two normal human eyes, with all the limitations that go with that? Or do they report having a 360 degree vision that can see into the microscopic and across the EM spectrum?
Is their hearing similarly unlimited? Because if they see and hear just like normal embodied people, then my guess would be that they're still embodied, but are experiencing a form of psychological dissociation where it seems like they've become separated from their bodies.
I don't know how the brain would produce the experience of seeing one's body lying in a hospital bed or what not, but then again, it's possible that sort of thing happens in dreams on occasion. I can't specifically remember having that exact dream experience, but I have experienced flying and other things my body can't actually perform.
Seems more likely than some entirely new form of existence (one without a body).
So I think the first thing you would need to do in support of our position is to lay out what it would mean to actually be disembodied. Then the next thing would be to show how NDEs can't be embodied in some abnormal psychological state due to the brain being close to death.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8scc2YbXUk
Agreed! It's too bad we can't intentionally bring these people back to near death, and have their disembodied spirits read some flash cards.
I look at testimony in terms of the whole, and I think it's important to take into account how people with no medical knowledge might describe things they see. If someone without medical knowledge was in the room, it's quite probable that they would describe things imprecisely. Just as people would do in their everyday lives, so I don't think this would necessarily mitigate the testimony. Although it might if we didn't have as many testimonials as we have (literally millions). What I find interesting in Pam's video, is that the doctors were confounded by her description of the experience. The fact that the doctors were baffled doesn't necessarily mean that she had an OBE, but it does suggest that her description was very unusual given her state.
What I mean by taking her experience as a whole, as opposed to picking out one or two things that might be explained in other ways, is the following: Does her description of the events in question match what others have described in terms of her metaphysical experiences. So, not only are we considering what she describes while in surgery, but does what she said match what others claim to have seen in their experiences. We are also considering things that some might find unimportant, but are important in terms of the truthfulness of their statements. For example, remarks that some might skip over like feeling very light while outside the body, which would be in keeping with not having gravitational effects. Also, how they describe their communication experience, viz., mind-to-mind. These are small things that you might find unimportant, but can tell you something about the veracity of their testimony in terms of how it lines up with other testimonials.
I think we can require more than what we would normally require in testimonial evidence. Any piece of testimony can be questioned to the point where we wonder if it's true or not. There are a myriad of ways to dismiss testimonial evidence, or to dismiss experiences that are out of the ordinary. That said, because these testimonials are making fantastic claims they do require more analysis.
Again, as I've said many times I find the consistency of these testimonials remarkable. Whenever you're looking at the testimony of a large number of people, even in normal testimonials we find inconsistencies. This is why testimonial evidence is generally weak, but as in an inductive argument, the conclusion is either strong or weak based on the kind of evidence. This is why my early evaluation of what makes testimonial evidence strong is important.
I will make other comments later.
I don't think we can check if she literally saw the implement, descriptions of experience are all we have to go on. There are plenty of other things she could've noticed and provided a precise description of - I gave a couple of examples in my post. I'm not saying for certain that we can rule out that Pam somehow observed the events in the room via an OBE, I'm saying that there are enough mitigating or problematic points in the video to render it not evidence of the veridicality of NDEs. I attempted to portray what actually would be strong evidence that an NDE was veridical in my post.
The fact that there are consistent groups of themes within NDEs is interesting, but is not evidence that the NDEs are observing something 'out there' which is real. You can see the same thing with the many religions which include 'tree of life' imagery; they are incompatible accounts of purportedly real phenomena with common mythopoetic structures. I think it's also plausible that the consistencies observed in NDE and other mystical experiences can be generated by there being an encultured, primordial mythopoetic structure with broad parameters - life/death imagery, revelation, calm/home feelings, out of body experiences, otherworldly visitations...
The consistency is interesting, but as above it is not sufficient to get to the veridicality of NDEs. Further, there is a causal element in the argument you've made. Namely, that when descriptions of NDEs contain some independent information the NDE effected person could not have had access to without the NDE, that suggests the NDE is veridical. My point is that enough and the right kind of NDE descriptions with these properties would be evidence that NDE experiences are veridical.
Enough in the sense that people exposed to the NDE are likely to produce the right kind of testimony. The right kind being precise, non-confounded, non-primed, sequentially accurate descriptions being necessary to establish NDEs veridicality in general. I don't think it's appropriate to attempt to establish the veridicality of X using X.
This plays into my previous probabilistic argument, and I'll address your response to it here.
Imagine we have a huge mansion and 50 people are given a photograph of different rooms in the mansion. Each person is then tasked to describe the contents of the photograph. I think this is roughly equivalent to your example of the 100km^2 area. If a person describes elements of the photograph accurately and doesn't describe things which aren't in the photograph, we'll call their description accurate. Now imagine we hide the mansion and the photographs, and give the written descriptions to a third party.
The third party's job is to provide an account of the observations of the people. We'll call this third party Steve: I think it's likely that Steve would describe a large house with decor of a certain colour, descriptions of and numerosity of rooms - a very good description of the real mansion's rooms and general decor. Can Steve conclude from the descriptions alone that the 50 participants were shown photographs of a real mansion or paintings of a fictitious one? I don't think so.
Can Steve derive any evidence from the descriptions that they're descriptions of photographs or paintings? Can Steve claim this on the basis of the consistency of the reports?
Edit: let's further imagine that half of the rooms had a blue decor and half had a red decor. Steve may conclude based on the inconsistency of the decor that the house was unreal. Or alternatively, he could say that the decor changes and derive the 'blue' theme and the 'red' theme from the descriptions - grouping them based on which theme was present.
In this scenario, the veridicality of the experiences of the people was assumed, but Steve still cannot derive any evidence that the descriptions refer to a painting of a mansion with red and blue decor, photographs of a mansion with red and blue decor, or that they come from separate things all together.
________________________
As another experiment, imagine that 100 people are given the same photograph and are tasked to describe it as completely as they can. It is unlikely that pairs of people produce descriptions containing exactly the same propositions, but there will be a high degree of agreement and no contradictions. Steve, again serving as a third party, could conclude that their perceptions were likely to be veridical based on the consistency. Imagine instead that 50 of the people were shown one photograph and 50 were shown another which had the same fixtures but different decor. Steve could not conclude that their perceptions were veridical due to the split. Alternatively, Steve could decide that 50 of the people described a house with blue decor, and 50 of the people described a house with red decor. I think your argument from testimony is essentially this: there are blue and red thematic subgroups, therefore Steve can conclude the descriptions are of photographs.
This reminds me of the tv show, "The OA", where the main character tells a story of having been abducted by a mad scientist who repeatedly bring her and four other people to near death (or actual death but revival before brain damage) using som device to record their experiences. He wants to provide scientific proof that the afterlife exists.
So, where does all this come from? What is your background? Are you a statistician who helps interpret scientific studies? What is the body of knowledge and experience that leads you to this understanding?
There is a lot of discussion of "what is truth" on this forum. It seems to me that a study of probability and statistics has something to say about that. I bought a book on statistics once just because I liked the title - "Probability, Statistics, and Truth." It turned out to be a pretty standard summary. I am an engineer who has to work with laboratory analytical data, concentrations of chemicals in soil, from time to time. My understanding of statistics is not sophisticated, but I have seen it misused in ways even I recognize as absurd in order to paint the picture that people want to see.
I've enjoyed your explanations in this, and other, threads.
Your body is nearing death. Your consciousness become disconnected. You are now disembodied. Do you float up, or does gravity still hold you to the ground? Can you walk through walls and jump through floors? Do your visual experiences come from the same height when you had a body? Do you feel the flutter in your heart upon realizing you're a ghost?
Can your mind reach out and touch objects? Maybe your body was holding back your telekinetic powers. Perhaps you can sense the numerous radio waves all around you.
What does reality look like now? You no longer filter it through sense organs, or construct it via brain processes. Do you see things as they really are? Is the world still full of the same colors? Can you meander over to the cafeteria and stick your ghostly tongue inside an apple? Taste the atomic structure?
Maybe you can make yourself subatomic or giant sized. Walk (or float) around like Godzilla. Does that cause any sort of trimmers? Do sound and light waves pass through you as you sample them? Maybe your ghostly existence allows you a kind of camouflage.
And if you really concentrate hard enough, perhaps you can teleport yourself to other places. What about other times? You're not longer a physical being.
Come to think about it, what if Kant was right? Time and space are mental constructs. Are they still constructs without a brain? Can you access your memories stored in that brain?
There's all sorts of things to consider. Perhaps you will criticize the above on the grounds that it assumes the material world.
Okay, let's put it another way. We live a life of bodily experiences. Disembodied consciousness would mean experiences absent a body. So what is that like?
What is it like to be a ghost? Is it possible to provide an account of experience that is not grounded in bodily sensation or perception?
Chapter 2? maybe of Strawson's Individuals, the no-space thought experiment. Book also includes the I-have-three-bodies thought experiment, which I wish someone would make into a flash game.
Sorry-- Individuals is the book. I just wasn't bothering to check. I have now, and Chapter 2 is the no-space thing and Chapter 3 has the three-bodies thing.
This is ever so barely on-topic because PFS argues that our concept of consciousness is entirely embodied, and a specific "my body", much as you have suggested here.
That's what I think. Disembodied consciousness is probably incoherent, at least for human beings, because the only consciousness we know about is an embodied one. Ours is inherently embodied through and through.
So I think it will be really hard for someone to come up with a coherent version of disembodied consciousness which doesn't just borrow from our embodied experiences. That would be strong reason to be really skeptical of NDEs as evidence for out of body experiences.
There are enough other things that she describes to reasonably infer that she saw what she claims to have seen. Furthermore, the doctors and nurses were impressed by what she said she saw and heard. None of this, however, is dependent on any one piece of testimonial evidence, as I'm sure you understand. Most of this boils down to whether one believes the testimonials, and whether they are consistent. There are plenty of studies done by doctors and others who have also concluded that these testimonials have a consistent ring across many cultures.
Quoting fdrake
You don't see this with many religions, it's not the same at all. Most religious experiences are totally subjective, that is, there is no way to verify what people are claiming on a subjective level. Many of these testimonials have an objective component to them. For example, one can verify the accuracy of these testimonials by interviewing others who were there (Doctors, nurses, family, and friends). The claims are that while outside their bodies they saw X, these things can be verified. The claims are that they heard X, this can be verified.
What I find is that people reject the evidence not because they have good arguments, but because they have a world view that denies any such belief. The evidence for me is overwhelming. There are just too many of these to deny that consciousness is limited to a physical body.
I don't know how you explain people looking at themselves from a third person perspective when they have no brain activity and no heart beat. The claim is also that the reality they are experiencing is more vivid than what we experience normally. Their sensory experiences are heightened, not lessoned. This is a common theme among many who have had the experience. It's common among a whole host of people, including atheists, religious people, very young people, and across a wide variety of cultures.
Using your criteria fdrake one could explain away almost any experience one finds questionable. Some of your criteria written early on demands too much of testimonial evidence. Most of what we believe and accept is based on testimony - what we read and listen to. However, I'm not saying that one should accept any testimonial evidence, which is why I spent time going over what an argument should look like based on testimonial evidence.
That said, I appreciate your responses even if I disagree. At least you didn't start the conversation by saying this is BS. Moreover, as I said earlier, you did what I wanted someone to do, that is, give a reasoned argument against my argument. I didn't respond to all of your points, but I did read them.
Since you offered a summary post I'll give one too. Saying 'it's BS' wouldn't've let me wrestle with some relevant ideas I recently encountered (causal statistics), also a reasoned argument demands a reasoned response. :)
My view is that the testimonials as you have presented them are not sufficiently strong to conclude that NDE experiences generate veridical perceptions; in the sense that it cannot be said that the person perceived X because of an NDE. This is because the testimonials as you have presented them don't meet the evidential standards I outlined. IE they are possibly confounded, possibly riddled with priming effects and cannot control for unobserved factors. The probabilistic argument for their non-veridicality I outlined I believe is supported by the variability of the reports and their inability to meet the standards of experiences we already know to be veridical.
It is true that to try to infer causal properties from testimonial evidence, a form of observational study, places a lot of constraints on the content of the observations. This isn't a flaw in my argument, rather it speaks to the inappropriateness of testimonial evidence to establish that NDE perceptions are veridical. Further you did not address the the problems of inferring veridicality given sampling effects, or the thought experiment involving the mansion.
It was good fun debating with you though.
There is a peer-reviewed Journal of Near-Death studies that I've been reading, but I haven't read all of the articles, which I would like to do. For what it's worth there are some scientists that have concluded that NDEs do present evidence of consciousness surviving the body. However, just because there are scientists who agree with me or anyone else, that isn't evidence that an argument is well justified.
I'm only interested in the arguments, not whether the argument fits a particular world view. I've criticized Christians because the evidence to support their beliefs is based on very weak testimonial evidence, so I'm not interested in falling into the same trap. My critique of, for example, the resurrection was based on the same analysis used in this thread, so I've applied what I believe are the criteria that should be used to analyze testimonial evidence. This analysis is not a scientific analysis, which is what your analysis would require. It's an analysis based on the logic of an inductive argument, that is, I used the same criteria that makes a strong inductive argument.
Another important point about my argument is that I'm saying that one can know apart from a scientific analysis that testimonial evidence is good evidence based on my criteria. On the other hand, it's extremely important when dealing with subjects of this sort to have such an analysis done.
I've listened to critics of NDEs, and for the most part I find them lacking. Especially after having spent as much time as I have analyzing the testimony. Most of these critics are so disinclined to believe the testimony that they do not spend much time analyzing the data. Actually Fdrake your argument is one of the best I've seen in terms of how we should look at the data. But based on the evidence I've looked at, especially the consistency of the reports, I'm more than inclined to believe the testimonials.
My point would be that a reasonable person can conclude that these testimonials are strong support for consciousness surviving the body. Now if it can be shown that there is another explanation for these NDEs, then that's something that should be considered. However, in my studies I have found nothing that could explain these testimonials.
My next post will address some of the specifics of your argument.
Looking forward to it, it was a fun discussion before, should be again.
Hey Sam.
I'm looking back at the criteria you offered as candidates for judging the strength of an argument based on eyewitness testimony, and there's an issue I'd be interested to hear you address. Here are some snippets:
Quoting Sam26
Quoting Sam26
Quoting Sam26
I added some emphasis, from which you might deduce my question…
When we first discussed these criteria as a group, I think most of us assumed we were discussing criteria for assessing the credibility of a description of a single event based on the accounts of multiple witnesses. I made comparison to a close play at second witnessed by tens of thousands of people only one of whom was within ten feet of the play, but who could be in a worse position than the umpire team watching video footage from other angles.
As it turns out, you're not talking about a single event with multiple witnesses, but an event type, and each event has only a single direct witness, though there may be corroboration from medical staff, etc.
You yourself just mentioned accounts of the resurrection of Jesus as a comparison, which again is a single event multiple people give testimony about.
To start with, I think we should look for new comparisons to understand the structure of the argument. Some that come to mind are controversial diagnoses like fibromyalgia or Gulf War syndrome. But the method for judging those issues is relatively clear if difficult, and even if for some time no conclusion can be reached.
I really can't think of a good comparison for your case. It seems we would have to look at other inherently subjective experiences, but maybe you have a clearer sense of this than I do. (I understand there are sometimes arguments-- arguments!-- about whether anyone actually enjoys something, say, the music of Tom Waits.)
I suppose it could be argued something like this is what we do practically all the time. None of us, as the man said, can see the beetle in another's box, but somehow we almost all come to believe we're almost all having broadly similar experiences.
In sum, the issues are:
Interested to hear your thoughts.
"My argument turns on this idea of conditional reports. I can state it more precisely now, with reference to the previous 'door seeing' example. Say there are 200 people in my door seeing study. I only expose 100 of them to the door. I then record self reports of whether they see the door or not. I think if this experiment was conducted, close to 100% of the people who saw the door would say that there was a door then, this makes the condition probability of seeing the door given being exposed to the door close to 100%. I am claiming this is good evidence because of high consistency in the reports of people who have been exposed to the door. It is irrelevant that 50% of the people in the study didn't see the door.
"So let's apply this to NDEs, do we observe very consistent regularity in the reported content of people who have experienced NDEs? No, there are many different stories. This means that exposure to an NDE doesn't (probabilistically) entail having a particular experience. Whereas exposure to the door does (probabilistically) entail seeing the door."
I agree with much of this. However, there is a similarity between your door example, and what people are reporting in their NDE. There is one feature that is common to all NDEs, which again is similar to the door example. That feature is the OBE. All of those, or nearly all of those reporting an NDE report from a third person perspective, and it's close to 100%. In fact, if one didn't report this, one would wonder whether the person had an NDE. This would mean that exposure to an NDE would probabilistically entail this specific experience (OBE). In fact this is why my conclusion isn't much broader than it is, namely, because I'm trying to give evidence of consciousness apart from body. The scope of my conclusion is a narrow one given the evidence. Only that people are reporting seeing their bodies and what's happening around them from a place outside their normal sensory experiences.
Let's start here and work our way through the argument.
Maybe thinking of it this way might clear some of this up. Let's think of a large building, and within the building are many people doing a variety of things. The building has many different entrance points, and of course each entrance point is going to give you a different view of the events happening within the building. Let's also assume that 1000 people entered the building at different points, and that they did it one at a time. Moreover, as each one came out of the building they reported their sensory experiences. This would give us a large sampling of the events in the building, and we would be able to evaluate the consistency of the reports. In this analogy the building would represent the OBE (out-of-body experience), and the reports would of course be what they saw from the third-person perspective. So it's not exactly like 1000 people all being at an event and reporting what they saw. It's more like a 1000 people witnessing the event one at a time, but it's still the same event reported by the witnesses.
No analogy is probably going to capture the complete picture of what's going on here, but we can come close.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
I don't want to get into a discussion of the witness accounts of the resurrection, but suffice it to say that most of it is hearsay testimonials, and we only have two or three, maybe, first-hand accounts. I say this to only point out that the testimonial evidence for NDEs is much much larger, and they're all first-hand accounts.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
It's not quite like the beetle in the box analogy put forth by Wittgenstein. In the beetle in the box analogy there is no way to confirm what you're looking at. Each of us could be looking at very different things. However, in the NDEs people are reporting things that all of us have seen, that is, if someone reports seeing their dead uncle, then we have pictures of what the dead uncle looks like, or we have others who have seen the uncle. In the beetle in the box example one might say be saying they see X, but there is no way that anyone can see X, or can even relate to what X is. They're pointing to something that has no relation to objective reality at all. People in the NDEs are reporting events that others are confirming. People are claiming to hear conversations of those around their dead body, and these conversations are confirmed by the people who were there. So there is objective verification.
It's multiple witnesses going into the same building at different times. Some of the things are the same, and yet some of the things that are reported are different, in that they happened at different times. Thus, even though I enter the building at a different time, there are still going to be things that are very similar, and still many things that are different. Furthermore, I might even interpret what I see based on my world view, which might account for the different religious interpretations of the experiences.
A large number of the reports are very similar, which is to say that they are not completely subjective. Also one can make the claim that any sensory experience is in some way subjective, but that doesn't discount the experience. The key of course is corroboration.
"So what we can conclude from the testimony is that people who identify as having NDEs and who self report mystical experiences will have at least one of 15 mystical themes in it. Evidence for the disjunctive event isn't evidence for the veridicality of experiencing any disjunct, rather like in the dress example. This leads me to conclude that:
"1) There are general themes within NDEs for those who self report content.
2) There is no evidence that exposure to near death generates a particular NDE.
3) From 2), there is no evidence that the perception of a given NDE type is veridical."
First, my conclusion from reading between 3500 and 4000 accounts is that people who self-report have at least three or more of the things listed on the NDE reports. I'm not sure why you would think that the reports are disjunctive events. The reports are reports of seeing many things, that is, the reports are very much like any testimonial report that one hears from a variety of witnesses of an event or events. It's not like your dress example, that is, that they're seeing either white or blue. They are describing things in chronological order (temporal order), which is very important, and they're describing a variety of things and conversations.
There is an enormous amount of evidence that NDEs generate particular sensory experiences. Again I'm basing this on a close study of the people and the testimony, and I'm basing it on corroborating reports of those who were at the scene. The first thing that almost all of these NDEers report is that of being outside their bodies (OBEs). Each report is going to be different based on what they remember and what's happening around them. Many also report hearing and seeing events just as we would see and hear any normal event. It's also important to point out that each person is having their own NDE, no two of them will be exactly alike. It's like 1000 people going to various places in Alaska and coming back and making a report of what they saw, which is why we need to have many thousands of reports to get 99% reporting W, 30% seeing X, 26% seeing Y, and 2% seeing Z. Thus if we're getting 99% reporting an OBE, that's millions of people reporting the same thing. These reports are exactly what we would expect if 1000 people went to various places in Alaska. They are exactly what we would expect if we went to the places where they claimed to have been, and verified the veracity of their reports by interviewing people who were also there. The main difference is that they're reporting something that doesn't fit a particular world view, or even scientific view. I find that this is what generates the most disdain for the argument.
There is an interesting point that needs to be made, that is, if I didn't believe the people who claimed they went to Alaska, I could make the same claims that people are making about NDEs. They aren't seeing the same things, they hallucinated, they were on drugs, they're lying, their making claims based on faulty memory, or based on what they read somewhere. It's easy to dismiss testimonial evidence, especially given that testimonial evidence is generally weak.
Hey Sam...
I want to first say that you're a model for how to appropriately interact on forums such as this. You may remember my avatar name, maybe not. Either way I've been reading you and others since before the old old philosophy site went haywire(the one with five red apples, timeline, hypersonic, yourself, and so so many others).
Regarding the topic, I have a few personal experiences to add, and a possible alternative explanation.
Personally, I've had more than one NDE that I'm aware of. The first I was comatose with bleak diagnosis. Massive head injury. I remember nothing until long after coming out of it.
The second I never lost consciousness. It involved a 'miraculous' escape - of sorts - from a vehicular collision which would have certainly been deadly. My car was traveling well in excess of 60mph on an old well-paved country road. The road was both hilly and curvy and I knew it all too well. The estimated speed is quite conservative actually. I regularly drove in excess of 80mph on that road and near that particular area/location.
As my car was cresting a hill on a curve, I knew another car was approaching from the other direction by virtue of the headlights(it was pre-dawn). When reaching the top of the hill, the other vehicle was directly in front of me, headlights blinding - in my lane - not the other. In no time whatsoever, I reacted purely without deliberation, quickly swerving the car to the right(towards the roadside drainage ditch) and then just as suddenly back to the left.
The approaching car was suddenly in my rear view mirror quickly disappearing as I rounded the left hand curve. I was literally trembling and awestruck at the fact that I was still ok and somehow still driving on the road??? That feeling of sheer disbelief lasted most of the day, but quickly returned in full force after actually stopping on the return trip to the same location, in an attempt to figure out exactly how I didn't end up crashing.
The simple facts...
The road literally had no shoulder. The other car was - all of the sudden - directly in front of me(20ft away at most). I was traveling at least 60mph. The other was traveling at an unknown speed, but the speed limit was 45. My car had no place to go.
The only place that would even be able to accomodate a car was a single car width driveway on the right hand side of the road well past the crest of the hill and just prior to a downhill left curve. There is no physical way for my car - which was brand new and quite maneuverable - to be traveling at that speed and be steered into and back out of such a narrow driveway. Nevermind the unlikely event that the other car, my car, and that driveway were all in perfect relationship to one another in order for it to even be the case that at the exact moment I veered, the driveway just happened to be there.
While I cannot be certain, I suspect that the other car was actually a newspaper delivery person who was bouncing 'back and forth' between mailboxes on both sides of that road. The houses are acres and acres apart in that area. That particular day I had left 2 hrs earlier than most days, and the early departure happened again afterwards. A few times after, I noticed a newspaper delivery person, and on one occasion in particular, I also witnessed the bouncing act.
This, however, didn't offer evidence for a better 'physical' explanation, per se. Rather, it further confirmed that something quite inexplicable happened. You see, if the car was indeed the delivery person crossing back over the road, then I couldn't have possibly swerved into that driveway, for it was on the other side of the mailbox, and the delivery vehicle would have had to have been between my car and the mailbox.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding NDE's along the lines of what you're basing your thoughts on...
Could it be the case that those experiences were lucid and vivid like some dreams? I mean, one's physiological sensory perception can work just fine even if the agent is unaware of the fact that it's working. This may help explain how the visions/experience matched up to what was going on in the room, as corroborated by staff and others?
Thanks for the remarks Creative, and yes I do remember you, and the people you mentioned. We go all the way back to Ephilosopher, which was more than 10 years ago. Sometimes I've wondered whether it's worth it to spend time in these forums, but as I look back at the time spent writing and responding to people, it has helped. Even though it can be a pain in the butt. I wish fiveredapples wouldn't get himself kicked out of these forums - I disagree with him about a lot of things, but he definitely knows how to argue. He's just too hard on people.
Can it be lucid dreaming? I've had lucid dreams, but I know the difference between a lucid dream and reality, that is, after having a lucid dream, I'm able to tell the difference. Also there are too many accounts of people without a heartbeat and without any measurable brain activity, so the question arises, how are they able to have lucid dreams under such conditions? And how would one explain how it is that people are reporting the same things, such as, seeing dead relatives and friends, having a life review, etc. I've never heard of lucid dreams matching with other people's lucid dreams. Nor have I heard of consistent reports of lucid dreaming where people report seeing themselves from a third person perspective. Finally, it's also interesting that people report that what their seeing is more real than this reality, as if this is the dream, that is, their sensory perceptions seem to be enhanced. Dreams tend to be a dumbed-down version of reality.
Thanks again Creative.
Sam26, you didn't give an argument based on testimonial evidence.
Anyway, since this is about survival after the end of the body, it would be difficult to get testimonial evidence, because, even if the person remembered the life that had ended, how would they communicate it to us?
The only way there could be testimonial evidence would be if there's reincarnation, and if people who have reincarnated can sometimes remember their past life. And the only way that could be verifiable would be if their previous life had been in this same world, at an earlier historical period. And they'd have to remember details that they couldn't have known if they hadn't lived that previous life.
How could that be verified? After all, it's about the past. Anyone could look up facts about the past, or otherwise research them. Doesn't it seem as if it would be impossible to determine whether someone found out those facts about the past via a past life, or by, in some way, researching it?
No, it seems to me that the only way there could be testimonial evidence of survival of death would be if someone could be reincarnated here, whose past life was in our future. Then s/he could make predictions that s/he couldn't possibly know otherwise.
Now, look at all of the special conditions needed, in order for there to be testimonial evidence of survival of death. It's hardly likely. ...especially since I claim that there's no reason to expect someone to be reincarnated from one historical period to another in thje same world. ...and especially since I claim that reincarnation doesn't include a memory of one's past life.
That's a lot of "if"s. But only under that special set of conditions could there be any reliable testimonial evidence.
In any case, ask yourself what it would mean to not "survive" death. Do you mean that you'd experience the time after the dissolution of your body, and you'd, at that time, experience "oblivion"?
1. If you're experiencing after-dissolution oblivion, doesn't that mean that you've survived death?
2. Obviously that doesn't make sense. Your survivors will experience time after the dissolution of your body, but you certainly won't. So you never experience the hypothetical but meaningless "oblivion".
(So, by the way, don't anyone commit suicide to achieve oblivion, because there's obviously no such thing, for the reason that I stated above.)
We needn't even go into what happens for you at death. But the issue of "surviving" death doesn't really have meaning as a Yes/No debate-issue, for the reasons that I've stated above.
Michael Ossipoff
Sam26--
My apologies. You did give an argument based on testimony. That's what happens when I reply without reading more of the thread.
Yes, there's good reason to believe that NDEs are genuine, and that the reports are valid.
There was a surgeon who had a particularly unusual NDE report. He was significantly more shut-down than in other NDE instances, and so there were no communications or conversations. He evidently reached a deeper stage of death, and was resuscitated. His book is titled Proof of Heaven.
NDEs happen at an early stage of death,with that surgeon's NDE being an exception different from most.
Most NDEs happen when shutdown hasn't proceeded very far. That doesn't tell us much about what eventually happens. That surgeon's report is fascinating, because if might be a rare glimpse of a stage of shutdown that's much closer to the full shutdown of the body.
By the way, the NDE reports sound very much like the temporary Heavens and Hells described by Hinduism and Buddhism.
Michael Ossipoff
But I should add this:
Obviously, because those people who reported the NDEs were resuscitated early enough for resuscitation to be possible, the NDE reports don't prove survival past that stage.
Of course undeniably they say something about what the relatively early stages of death are like, and the person has an indication of the decidedly positive nature of death (...but the reports are decidedly negative when the near-death was due to suicide).
...and the surgeon's NDE report is particularly interesting, for the reason that I mentioned.
But, regarding the question about survival of death, my answer is in my first of these three posts. It isn't necessary to prove survival by testimony, because the question loses its meaning, because, for the reason that I described, there's can be no such thing as an experience of oblivion after death..
Michael Ossipoff
What I would say about past lives is the following: There are many reports (thousands) that people remember, while in their NDE, that they and others have lived other lives. Of course it first has to be established that the NDE testimonials are indeed veridical. I believe they are, so I do believe based on the testimony that we can live out other lives by simply re-entering another body. I don't believe in reincarnation in this sense, I don't believe in the doctrine of reincarnation as put forth by religious types.
There are also reports by those who have taken DMT that coincide with the NDE reports of living other lives. I'm not saying that the testimonial evidence for this is as strong as the claim I'm making about consciousness surviving the body, which is only what I'm claiming in this thread. Since almost 100% of those who have an NDE report that their consciousness experience was from a third-person perspective, this is the strongest part of the argument based on testimony; and it's the one I'm inferring.
There does seem to be some evidence that after we live out this life, we can choose other lives, either in this reality or another reality.
There is also evidence that many religious interpretations of NDE accounts are heavily influenced by culture. So I put little stock in people's claims about heaven or hell, the doctrine of reincarnation, or the seeing of religious figures (Jesus, angels, etc.).
Finally, just a quick remark about suicide. When I first started studying NDEs I thought that people who committed suicide had a much more negative NDE, and some do, but after reading many thousands more I have concluded that this isn't the case. Although I'm not sure of the percentages.
Would you clarify that distinction between what you don't believe about reincarnation?
I think we agree that there is probably reincarnation, but we don't agree about its nature.
Reincarnation is implied by my metaphysics. As I said, you're in this life because there's a life-experience possibility-story about you. Whatever is the reason why this life began, then, if that reason remains at the end of this life, what does that suggest?
Just briefly, I don't believe it's a matter of conscious choice. I believe it happens at a stage death-shutdown at which there's no waking-conscioujsness,and we don't remember our recently ended life, and all that remains are subconscious incinations, subconscious habitual and inherited attributes (referred to in Vedanta as "vasanas".)
For that reason, because of the degree of shutdown at the time of reincarnation, I also don't believe that we ever remember a past life.
But I'm not trying to sound contentious. ...just mentioning a different position on the matter.
Michael Ossipoff
What I'm trying to do is draw conclusions based on the testimonial evidence. The main thrust of this thread is the conclusion that consciousness survives bodily existence. I have drawn other conclusions based on the testimony, but the strongest conclusion one can infer from the evidence is that consciousness is not a product of our bodies. If the evidence for this is found to be weak, then all of the conclusions that I've made are incorrect, because all of the other evidence is not as nearly as strong.
I don't like using the term reincarnation because it carries a lot of religious baggage. Part of the problem with reincarnation, as I understand it, is that there is no continuity of memory, which is a big problem in terms of saying that it's you that lived in the past. If there is no continuity of memory or experiences, then one can claim to be anyone, but this seems at the very least to be contradictory. My belief based on NDEs, and what people have reported in more in depth NDEs, is that once we leave our bodies our consciousness is expanded, that is, our memories and knowledge returns. It's very similar to waking from a dream state, which is a lower state of consciousness.
Many people have reported that their memories return and that their knowledge expands. Many also report that they chose to have the experience of being human, and that many of the experiences they have in this human reality, are experiences they chose to have before coming here, not everything, but many things. People have reported seeing people getting ready to be born, i.e., waiting for a body to enter. People also report that their essence is that of a much higher being, viz., that the experience of being human is a much lower form of life than what we truly are. The point here is that our memories and knowledge remain intact, just as when you're in a dream your memories and knowledge are diminished, but when you wake up it all returns. Thus the essence of who you are remains intact, and this is an important part of making any sense of living various lives. The dream analogy in a lot of ways provides a lot of similarities to what happens when we leave this life.
There is also plenty of testimonial evidence that our identities remain intact. When we die we return to our true selves, just as we do when we wake from a dream. One of the things that supports this idea is that people claim to see friends and family who have already passed on, and they are essentially the same person. Although they seem to be in a heightened state of awareness.
There are many questions that are answered if indeed one can believe these accounts. One is that we do have free will, but only up to a point. Certain experiences may be determined, but it seems that you do have a certain amount of freedom within the experience. You make choices about how you will respond or act within the experience. In one sense there are certain things that are determined, but in another sense one does have free choice within the experience. It's like being in a river that's moving us in a certain direction, but also having the ability to move left or right within the scope of the movement of the river.
I'm speculating, but I think we are all part of a vast consciousness or mind, i.e., we are individual pieces of the mind with our own individuality. It seems that everything that's taking place is taking place in a mind or minds, and that every possible reality is part of what that mind creates. This might explain why people who have an NDE report feeling connected with everything, as if everything is alive. If what I'm saying is true, then time and distance are in a sense illusory. Moreover, if this is true then we can enter into any reality we like, this is just one reality among many. It's like the brain in a vat, but the difference is we know we are a brain in a vat, we choose what we want to experience, and we can choose to have the experiences with friends. Of course it's much more than just being a brain in a vat because we have experiences with others, and the relationships are of a much higher order than anything we can experience here.
Sorry I got carried away. :-O
But what does it mean for me to leave my body and enter another body? What is doing the exiting and entering?
Of course it was Sam26 that you asked, but I'd like to say my answer:
(First, it's emphasized that neither I nor Sam26 claims proof that there's reincarnation. He cites testimonial evidence, and, I claim that my metaphysics implies reincarnation. Because of differences regarding the nature of reincarnation, of course Sam26's answer and my answer are likely to differ..)
You asked:
When you've lost waking-consciousness to the degree that you don't remember the life that has just ended, or the fact that a life has just ended, but you retain perception and awareness (In dreams, too, you don't know that there's a different, waking, life other than that of the dream), and of course you retain your inherited and acquired habits, tendencies, inclinations, feelings, and future-orientation--At that time you could be in an experience story about a life ending, or a life beginning. You're future-oriented, and your subconscious feelings are about life. So:
Among the infinity of life-experience possibility-stories, there's one that starts out where you are.
As I said, if the reason why this life started still obtains at the end of this life, then why wouldn't it happen again?
No, you don't have a perception of going from one body to another, or from one life to another. You're unconscious. But you're having vague experiences, awareness and perceptions. You don't know what's going on. Then a series of things happen that are bewildering and unexplained. What's surprising about that? Life isn't predictable.
...just as the Michaelson-Morely experiment result was unexplained until more physics was made available, in the form of relativity....just as the planet Mercury's rotation of apsides couldn't be explained until general relativity was introduced.. ...just as the black-body radiation energy-wavelength curve couldn't be explained till Max Planck showed that it can be explained if the radiation behaves as if energy is quantized (It was later shown that energy is quantized, at least under some conditions).
One thing about a life-experience possiblity-story is that it must be consistent (otherwise it wouldn't be a possibility story.
In those physics examples, seemingly unexplained things happened, which later made sense when the physics information was available to explain them.
Likewise, the bewildering unexplained events of birth and early infancy become explained later, in a self-consistent way. And, ongoingly, explanations eventually come, to explain,at least to some degree, previous events, in a self-consistent way. And, at every stage of life, right from infancy, we're interested in the consistencies in our surroundings, for obvious practical reasons (which we at first don't even know about).
Anyway, so my answer is that, at death, after such experiences as NDE reports describe, when real unconsciousness arrives, you later find yourself experiencing changes. You might not know much about life at that point, but it's about changes. And you soon find that these changes have led to a relatively-stable consistent siituation, which you begin learning about, and instinctively studying and discovering the consistencies of.
At no time did you perceive a transition to a new life. You just eventually experienced unexplained and bewildering events, changing situations, which you soon discover to be stable, with some consistencies. Later, you'll call that being in a life.
Of course you have no memory of or knowledge of any previous life.
You, of course.
Even though you've lost (waking) consciousness,and (as in dream-sleep) don't know about the life you were in, you're still you, with your subconscious feelings, experience, perception, awareness (of feelings and experience).
So you're still there, and it's the same you, continuously, throughout. There's continuity-of-experience, without which, of course, we couldn't speak of reincarnation.
Michael Ossipoff
Hey Sam. So, I'm wondering here. Since you've been researching first hand accounts of NDE's, have you noticed any similarities that run along familial, societal, and/or cultural lines? I mean, are there any stories and/or elements therein specific to such subjective particulars?
This happens with dreams too, that is, people sometime interpret their dreams based on cultural beliefs. And it's not only dreams, but people in general interpret all kinds of things based on their cultural beliefs, so this is not something unusual. In fact, people will interpret these NDEs based on their metaphysical beliefs, or their materialistic beliefs.
Do we not need to examine all of the examples with the intentional purpose of looking to identify and isolate each and every common denominator? I suppose I'm pointing out the need for us to establish and/or determine the necessary and sufficient conditions for consciousness.
If it means anything at all for us to say that consciousness can be both - disembodied and still yet extant in some adequate sense of the word - then we must seek to establish a minimum criterion which, when met, will count as being an example of consciousness. Then and only then can we have some idea of what we're talking about when discussing whether or not consciousness can exist independently of a physical and/or material body.
Consciousness - at its core - must consist in/of that which is common to each and every example thereof; the set and/or group of common denominators remaining extant after removing all that is subject to individual(familial, historical, and/or cultural) particulars.
Follow me?
My two-cents:
Testimonial statements need to satisfy the following criteria:
1. The person must be reliable i.e. s/he must be honest.
2. The testimony must fit in with the existing knowledge framework. I think this is your criteria of consistency.
3. Corroboration is a plus point, especially if varied - men, women, animals, instruments, etc.
Testimonial statements re ''consciousness surviving the body'' fail on 2 and 3 - at least that's'what they say.
Is that enough to call it "me"? To say that I left one body to enter another one?
But I'm not the same me, because in a different body, I will have different feelings, experiences, perceptions, etc.
Quoting Marchesk
No one's saying you're the same person next time.
In the new life, you're not the same you, but you're still you, by virtue of continuity of experience.
...and with various subconscious hereditary and acquired feelings, attributes, tendencies, inclinations retained from the previous life.
Michael Ossipoff
I'm glad you agree that testimonial data which satisfies the criteria I outlined is rare. 4000 accounts quickly becomes a lot less when the data is filtered to the relevant cases for consideration. I realise I made a few strands of arguments, so let me detail the threads individually. The thrust of my major argument consists of a few steps (and this is the one I am most convinced by). Key sentences for the argument are given by numbers, sub-steps and supporting statements are given by the appropriate argument number then Roman numerals.
Argument 1
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Key questions of the first argument: what are the relevant qualities of testimonial data to be included as part of an analysis of whether NDE experiences are veridical? And this is tied to the question: what would evidence for NDEs being veridical look like?
(1) Reducing the effective sample size of testimonials to ones which are relevant for studying whether the accurate statements arose because of the NDE.
(1i) This was done through applying the aforementioned filters on observational data to preclude confounding factors, leaving few testimonials.
(2)If NDEs were in the aggregate veridical, we would expect accurate descriptions during NDEs because of NDEs to be common.
(2)i This is established through the door analogy. If a person is exposed to a door, they will see a door if the door is there because the door is there (if it's there). This would give a high proportion of accurate descriptions in those cases which satisfy the criteria.
(3) We do not observe many cases of NDEs that satisfy the filters.
(4) The rarity of accurate descriptions in testimonials satisfying the filtering criteria are consistent with these phenomena arising out of a highly improbable random mechanism.
(4i) More detail: with the door example, accurate descriptions satisfying the filter are too common to be the product of solely rare chance.
(5) There is not enough relevant data to support that NDEs caused the accurate statements.
(5i) relevance being established by the filtering criterion.
Argument 2
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Key questions of the second argument: what would the descriptions in NDEs have to look like to be consistent? Can we describe a given person's NDE before it happens with a sequence of non-disjunctive statements? Why would the sequence taking a disjunctive form establish the non-consistency of NDEs?
I think the difference between your Alaska example and the door example, and the differences between each and a particular NDE are illustrative here.
The door example is different from your Alaska example. The door example is a model of a simple veridical perception, the Alaska example's 'parts of the state' are generated by the observed thematics of NDEs, and so can always be made consistent descriptions of NDEs in the aggregate through iterated disjunction. This will not help us predict the content of a particular person's NDE other than saying something like 'it is likely to contain an OBE and have at least one of these thematic sensations within it'.
You have aggregated the general thematics of the testimonials and are now claiming that they are consistent based off of the idea that they obey these general thematics. The door is consistent, people see the door if the door's there. We cannot tell 'if the door is there' - some kind of representational truth- with the general thematics of NDEs, since of course particular NDEs are likely to satisfy some subset of the derived thematic properties of their aggregate! Furthermore, if we could tell this from typical NDE content descriptions, the testimonials which satisfy the filtering criteria are likely to be far more common.
Points of Commonality and Difference
____________________________________________________________________________________________
I agree that there are general themes to NDEs. I believe people can have OBEs.
I do not believe NDEs are veridical. I don't think the quality of this testimonial data is high enough to address the question of NDE veridicality (needs to be close to the quality of a controlled experiment for causal claims).Thus I don't believe people are really 'outside their bodies' based on this evidence. I have further reservations on the idea of disembodied human consciousness independent of the issues of NDE testimony (typical counterpoints: brain-death and brain damage, phantom limbs).
I've tried to keep my reservations out of the analysis of testimony, but I believe (and this need not be addressed) that the improbability of disembodied consciousness casts doubt on the idea of NDE (and psychotropic drug use experience) veridicality.
Edit: I've removed the mansion thought experiment, and fleshed out my argument against the consistency of NDEs as you've presented it... These disagreements should be enough to chew on for the both of us I think.
Concerning (1) and (1i), it has not been shown, and it's purely speculation that the filters that you propose would have a negative affect on these testimonials. While it's true that these testimonials would either benefit or not from such an analysis, it has not been demonstrated one way or the other.
Concerning (2) and (2i), There have been studies that show that NDEs do give accurate descriptions.
And those that have done the studies break down what's common to NDEs, as I have done, only using percentages. You give the example of the door, but as I've answered in a previous post, the door analogy is not complex enough, it doesn't have the complexity of normal veridical experiences. Moreover, the one thing that stands out in these testimonials is the OBE, which you seem to believe in. If one believes people can have OBEs, then how can one not believe that one can have accurate descriptions of their OBEs? Moreover, how is having an OBE not evidence of consciousness extending beyond the body? Unless your contention is that the OBE is dependent upon the body, but then the question arises, how are the testimonials of an OBE that is dependent on the body, any different from the OBEs people describe when the brain and heart are not functioning? How can you believe the testimonials of the former and not the latter?
Concerning (3), this again is speculation, since a study of this sort has not been done (as far as I know). Thus, one is within his/her epistemic right to conclude that the testimonials are veridically accurate. Unless you know of a study that shows that your filters rule out the accuracy of the testimonials, then your conclusion is based on what might be the case. One can rule out any testimonial based on some possible study that might show that they are not accurate or veridical.
Concerning (4) and (4i), again this is pure speculation, there has been nothing to demonstrate this to be the case. The idea that the accuracy of the testimonials can be reduced to randomness demonstrates a lack of study of the testimonials. I point this out because I believe in an earlier post you did say that you hadn't actually studied NDEs - not just read about them, but actually studied the testimonials.
The door example, I already addressed above and in an earlier post.
Finally, (5) and (5i), again speculation.
I'm not saying it's not possible that these NDEs cannot be explained in other ways, or discounted by a careful statistical analysis. I'm saying that given my own studies, and the studies of others, there is no other explanation or study that has been done to negate these accounts.
For your argument to work you would have to show more evidence to support your conclusion.
Quoting fdrake
The door example is an example of a simple veridical perception, which is why it won't do when compared with more complex NDEs. NDEs are good examples of everyday reports, they are virtually identical with everyday testimonials you might get when reporting on an event. Thus, unless one has good reason to dismiss them, without speculating on what might rule them out, I contend there is enough there to warrant the conclusion my argument makes.
The door example although not as complex as general NDEs does have a correlation to NDEs in the sense that nearly 100% of those who have an NDE report not only being out of the body while the body is still functioning normally, but also being out of the body when the body is virtually shut down.
My contention is that based on the research of others, and based on my own research there is enough consistency in these testimonials, and there is enough specificity within the millions of accounts to warrant the conclusion my argument makes. The same reports are given over and over again, not just a few here and there, but many millions of accounts.
One doesn't have to do a statistical analysis to know the testimonials are consistent. Simply reading them will suffice. Knowledge here is not a matter of statistical analysis, or a matter of what science might or might not say. Anyone who takes the time and effort to read the accounts, and not dismissing them out-of-hand can see there is something extraordinary here.
.
That’s what I’m trying to get at. What does that statement mean? What religious baggage does reincarnation carry?
.
Is it that, because you’re an Atheist, any subject, statement or word that comes from a religion is thereby ruled-out?
.
If suggestions or proposals have come to us from a millennia-old tradition, does that, for you, discredit them?
.
.
There’s continuity of experience, and that’s all that’s needed.
.
But, if you’re talking about testimonial proof, then yes, of course that would require conscious memory of at least one past life. I claim that there can’t be, and isn’t, such evidence.
.
Another thing about past lives: I claim that, aside from being unprovable, they’re also completely indeterminate even in principle. As I’ve said, you’re in this life because there timelessly is this life-experience possibility-story about you. That doesn’t say anything about whether you were in a previous life or not.
.
Yes, among an infinity of life-experience possibility-stories, it’s (at least nearly) a certainty that there’s one that would lead to this life, in the reincarnation manner that I’ve described. But, saying that you’re in this life because there’s a life-experience possibility about you says nothing about that. This could just as well be your first life.
.
The following statement can’t be factual: “Either you had a past life, or you didn’t.”
.
That’s what I meant by “indeterminate even in principle”.
.
…but though this life can’t be said to be, or not be, your first life, it’s very, very unlikely your last life, if Hindu/Vedanta tradition is right (It sounds right). According to that tradition, it’s only a very few most advanced people who are life-completed and consequence-free enough to not have the vasanas that lead to a next life at the end of this one.
.
.
There’s continuity of experience.
.
.
But those NDE reports, necessarily, happen at an early stage at which resuscitation is possible.
.
.
Yes. Nearly all NDE reports tell of an experience of many events of the life that has just transpired.
.
As you know, people report that their life is being played back for them.
.
.
Quite possibly.
.
.
Memories of the life from which they’re currently dying, yes.
.
.
That wasn’t in any of the NDE reports that I’ve read, or read of.
.
If those were a relatively-few atpical NDE reports, then, when they say things are that aren’t supported by most NDE reports, and without some metaphysical support, then they have probative power.
.
But yes, there’s still something to what you say. I feel that part of what makes there be a life-experience possibility about and for you is that you wanted a life in the sense of being life-inclined, at least subconsciously and emotionally. I mean, maybe there are only life-experience stories for/about such protagonists. So yes, people might realize that, during the NDE, and that could maybe even be called a “memory” of wanting a life—even if maybe not a memory in the usual sense of the word.
.
.
I haven’t encountered any NDE reports like that. As I was saying, the atypical reports that don’t have good metaphysical support and explanation, must be viewed with much skepticism.
.
But I’m being unfair again. I interpreted that as people standing in line, waiting for a birth in the supposed one objectively existent and real world, as portrayed in various movies.
.
The metaphysically-implied reincarnation isn’t to a body that you wait for to be born in the objectively existent and real world. The next world is a hypothetical possibility-world, and it’s already there for you, just for you, as the setting of a life-experience possibility-story that’s for and about you.
.
But it’s not implausible that people at the NDE-reported “way-station”, likely the same thing described in the East as a temporary Heaven or Hell, might be interested in moving on to a material life. (Remember that nearly all of the NDE reports are about a time immediately after death.)
.
.
Yes, because the NDE reports are about a time immediately after the beginning of death, a time at which (necessarily) resuscitation is possible.
.
That doesn’t mean that your memory and knowledge of this life is still retained when unconsciousness arrives, and there’s no waking consciousness.
.
.
Memories and knowledge regarding your recently-ended life remain at the time of the NDE it because it’s only a short time into death.
.
Of course, there’s continuity of experience.
.,
.
Yes, identity isn’t lost in reincarnation, though, of course, particular identity as a particular person doesn’t remain, though certain subconscious attributes remain.
.
.
Yes, at the time of the NDE, we’ve moved away from much of the particularity of this life, and our experience has more generality.
.
.
Yes, at that time, you’ve gone the way that they went.
.
As for free-will, if a person has to answer “Yes” or “No”, I’d say “No”. Our choices and decisions (even as perceived from our own point-of-view) are based on 1) Our pre-existing preferences (acquired and inherited ones); and 2) The circumstances of the situation.
.
Vedanta agrees with me on that.
.
.
I try to keep speculation out of metaphysics. That’s why I call my metaphysics Skepticism. What we perceive is that each of us is a separate individual, each in our own life-situation. An attitude of skepticism doesn’t permit speculation otherwise.
.
But I spoke earlier, in this or another thread, about how, at the end of lives, our experience becomes the same. And that’s Timeless, whereas our lives (however many thousands there we might each have) are temporary, and it’s said that the whole overall lives-experience is temporary. …something that I’d have no way of knowing about.
.
.
That sounds close to being a statement of Non-Realism.
.
I agree that the experiencer and hir (his/her) experience are what’s primary.
.
I don’t say that you “create or created” your world, but you’re obviously the primary, central and essential component of your life-experience possibility-story. It’s a life-experience story only because it has a protagonist, and your life-experience possibility-story’s protagonist is you.
.
.
Sure, and time and distance are illusory in the sense that they’re attributes of this universe, which is metaphysically secondary and posterior to you, as the setting for your life-experience possibility-story, which is for and about you.
.
.
Yes, it is. One among infinitely-many possibility-worlds and life-experience possibility-stories.
.
There’s something right about what you say. This metaphysics implies an openness, looseness, and lightness.
.
That sounds like what you’re expressing.
.
But we don’t consciously choose our next world, or even whether or not we have a next life. As I said, it’s traditionally said, and I agree that it makes sense, that, for nearly all of us, there will be a next life, and it isn’t a matter of choice, because it’s all we’re ready for, and we don’t know any better.
.
And, if you claim that we can choose the world we’re born into, then explain why you chose to be born in this world—the Land of the Lost.
.
Michael Ossipoff
I don't think that we'll make much more progress since we're at the stage of saying the other person has not answered previous points. I presented the previous arguments I made as if I had demonstrated them, I believe they're conclusive - but of course I could be wrong. This impasse is unfortunate
I'll address:
though.
I took some drugs once and had a trip. I saw Mario jump out of the closet in my room. I didn't for one second believe Mario was there. There's definitely the possibility for non-equivalence between the content of the experience and what things in the environment generated it (specifically for me it was the drug, not a hidden Mario in the closet). I take descriptions of NDEs as accurate descriptions of what the people experienced (a truism), but not necessarily in accord with what actually happened. Without actually going through all the papers (an exercise I believe unlikely to provide sufficient evidence that consciousness leaves the body). The filters I described are examples of standard procedures to remove confounding variables to allow for causal claims to be made. Just generating an accurate statement (after filter application) still isn't sufficient to show that NDE experiences peer beyond the veil.
I suppose I'll leave it at that.
I don't think so. ...unless you mean very short-term memory, from one subjective moment to the next. I don't deny that there's that latter very short-term memory, even in unconsciousness. But continuity of experience doesn't require memory of the life that has ended before you entered unconsciousness.
A mathematical function y(x) is said to be continuous if at any point x, the limit of y as x is approached from below exists and is equal to the limit of y as x is approached from above. In other words, there are no gaps or discontinuities in the the function y(x). But no one says that the function is continuous only if the y value for some x-value x1 is adjacent to the y value of some arbitrary other x-value value, x2.
In other words, for a mathematical function y(x), continuity is defined only at a point. It doesn't say that the function values for all x values must be adjacent to eachother.
Likewise, continuity of experience during unconsciousness (no waking-consciousness) doesn't require that you remember the life you were in before you went unconscious.
It is you.
But who says that you being you has to mean that you remember the life that you were in before you went unconscious?
Michael Ossipoff
But what does that mean?
NDE is an abbreviation for Near-Death Experience. The reports are, by definition, reports of experiences. As you said, that's a truism.
Then what else do you want them to be? What do you want to have "actually happened"., in order for the NDEs to be valid?
There are metaphysicses, Non-Realisms, such as mine, that describe "what metaphysically is" in terms of the individual's experience, and treat experience as metaphysically primary. Whatever you might know about the physical world comes to you only via your experience.
Obviously, we all agree that life and life-experience are consistent with, in correspondence with, and can be described as and correlated with the body and its events..
I often refer to that "correspondence-principle".
What else would you expect of experience?
It isn't necessary to claim that the NDEs are of some origin unrelated to the body. All of our experiences
are experienced as the body. You're the body. Who says that experiences, to be valid, must be unrelated to the body?
Michael Ossipoff
I should add that I don't believe that our physical world is objectively real anyway.
...because I regard it as a complex hypothetical system of inter-referring inevitable abstract logical if-then facts about hypotheticals.
...real and existent only in is own local inter-referring context.
Even with everything we know about body and mind today without actually crossing the threshold of life and death this is question that could not be answered conclusively.
I do tend to believe that there is a continuation of our consciousness as I believe there are many things in this world that our society tend to reject regardless of the abundance of evidence. All these thing with all their evidence can not however be undoubtedly proven.
As stupid as it sounds I still ponder these thing continuously but this has never been a fruitful exercise. (I will certainly continue to ponder aswell)
Debating this or trying to convince someone this without more than a blurry picture and idea and with no means of obtaining indisputable evidence is questionable.
Certainly explore and ponder, it would be foolish to ignore what's happening around you but again I don't believe you can possibly find an answer.
I would enjoy little more than you proving me wrong though.
I thought of a way to better describe the scenario which would lead to an NDEs content being accurate by chance rather than through a perceptual event.
Say a person is undergoing heart surgery and their heart stops. They have an NDE which they identify as beginning when their heart stops, and the report contains numerous accurate things - stuff that matches either a video record or doctors' memories. The NDE could just as well be a simulation of heart surgery viewed from an exterior vantage point rather than the surgery viewed from the same vantage point. It is likely that a simulated version contains some things which match the real thing - through common knowledge, stereotypes and other statistical regularities, but none of which occur due to a perceptual event.
In order to establish NDEs as veridical, it needs to be shown that the accurate parts of NDE testimony content are as the result of a perceptual event of their environment rather than of a simulation. Having an NDE which satisfies the above filters for non-confounding removes various arguments against the veridicality of that NDE (accuracy due to priming/confounding/contextual effects rather than a perceptual event during the NDE), having an NDE which produces many true statements and no or very few false statements about the surrounding environment that satisfies the filters would be good evidence that the NDE consisted of genuine perceptual events. However, we can still expect some 'very accurate simulations' - but we expect them rarely purely by chance.
That there are few NDEs that do not satisfy the filtering conditions is evidence - though not especially strong evidence - against the veridicality of the NDEs. Having few NDEs that match the filtering conditions means there is little evidence (purely combinatorially) that supports NDEs having veridical content.
I would like to see an uncannily accurate NDE transcript and the validation procedure, if you could provide me one? The kind of thing that makes you think 'hot diggity, there's really something to this, they're really experiencing genuine events despite being unconscious!'.
I'm not sure of my train of thought is what you're after Sam. Fdrake seems to be thinking along the lines you're looking for.
I suppose I'm working from the common sense notion that all examples of disembodied consciousness have one thing in common; consciousness.
Now I do not think that that commonality consists purely of the fact that we call things "consciousness", contrary to popular Wittgensteinian 'game' talk. The difference, of course, is that we decide what counts as a game, and we cannot get it wrong, whereas if consciousness is something that we become aware of, we can get it wrong. That basically underwrites the earlier post...
It's an interesting puzzle, Sam. I have lots of stuff I'm having trouble getting into good enough shape to post, but here's something.
Your hypothesis is something like this:
(C) An individual's consciousness can leave and return to her body.
This is offered as an explanation for why someone might have a near death experience, and competes with hypotheses that treat the NDE as a type of hallucination or something.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, there are events of type (C). We want to see if NDEs are always, sometimes, or never accompanied by instances of (C). But so far as I can tell, we have no way of separating the observations.
For comparison, suppose you want to see if a flame of a certain temperature will burn some material. You can establish that the temperature is reached, and that's one observation; whether the material burns when exposed to that temperature is another observation.
But in this case, whatever evidence we have that an event of type (C) has occurred is the same as the evidence that an NDE has occurred.
So my question is something like this: is (C) an hypothesis that would explain the occurrence of NDEs, and we simply don't have independent access to type (C) events; or is (C) more of a description or interpretation of NDEs rather than a potential explanation?
I've been trying to figure out what to do if it's the first option, but I'm interested to hear your thoughts while I'm working on it.
Criteria (1) is very important, however, it's hard to believe that millions of reports with very similar accounts aren't reliable, or that they aren't honest. This is why most critics try to discount them in other ways.
Criteria (2) is important up to a point, that is, we can't let existing knowledge be the final arbiter in terms of what we believe, or we wouldn't move beyond our present knowledge. However, your point is well taken.
Finally, my evaluation of the NDEs doesn't suggest at all that criteria (1) and (2) are points of failure.
What I mean by religious baggage is all the dogma that people believe based on very little evidence, or based on ancient writings that have very little support. This is my view in general about religion. However, that said, it's my contention that the belief in reincarnation originally came from NDE reports, because there are many reports of past lives in NDEs. It may be the case that all religions started from NDE reports.
By the way, why do you assume I'm an atheist? Maybe I'm an agnostic, or maybe I believe there's a God, but that that God doesn't fit within the framework of any religious dogma.
Just because beliefs come from traditions that are thousands of years old, that in itself doesn't make them untrue, or for that matter it doesn't make them true. I try to go where the evidence leads, even if that evidence goes against one's world view. The goal is knowledge and nothing else.
Finally, you say that continuity of experience is all you need for continuity of the person. But how would you know that you have continuity of experience if you don't remember your experiences?
I thought I addressed most of your argument, but maybe I missed some of your points. I addressed some of it in a general way because I'm not sure if an analysis like the one you propose has ever been done. Also, I don't think that such an analysis is needed to reasonably conclude that these NDEs are veridical. Our main disagreement is over the consistency of the testimonials.
Quoting fdrake
I might have second thoughts about your Mario example if millions of people were seeing the same thing. However, because a few people see Mario that sure wouldn't warrant believing that the experience was more than a subjective experience, not in accord with objective reality.
I also addressed the idea that your filters are reasonable, but since there are no studies showing that your filters have done the job of weakening the testimonials, I'm not sure what else I can say. Other than you're correct that such a study should be done.
You seem to be saying, sorry if I'm incorrect, that since these filters are possible defeaters, that I should reject the testimonials.
For me knowledge is intrinsically good, and in terms of NDEs I think it would be a good thing to expand our knowledge of consciousness. While it's true that there are many questions which we will not be able to answer, that shouldn't deter us from our quest. There will always be questions. In fact, the more I learn the more questions I have.
Quoting Another
We don't need to answer questions conclusively to have knowledge. Some of our knowledge is absolute, but most of it, or much of it, is based on what's probably the case, that is, a high degree of probability.
Quoting Another
It's not stupid, and don't let the view of others diminish your search for knowledge. Thinking outside the box is a good thing, as long as you don't get so far outside the box that you lose sight of the box.
Quoting Another
I don't believe that what I presented is a blurry picture. I thinks it's quite clear. However, it took years of studying these NDEs to come to that conclusion. I don't expect, nor do I hope to convince anyone of anything, at least that's what I tell myself (lol). In an idealistic world it's all about the argument, that is, the framework used to present the evidence. Don't confuse the term argument with dispute, it's about how your statements follow from one another. It sure isn't the kind of debating that we see in our public forums, which is for the most part yelling, name calling, etc. However, as you can see in this thread, mostly it's done in a very respectful way. Sometimes we get agitated, but arguments are about reasons for belief, not about personalities or emotions.
And as for an answers, I do believe that I have found some answers, but mostly questions.
Does blowing into a balloon cause it to inflate?
I observe a guy blowing into a balloon, and I observe the balloon inflating. Then I do this 10,000 more times. I find that sometimes the blowing is not accompanied by the balloon inflating, but usually is. I investigate further and find some children cannot produce enough air pressure to inflate a balloon; some balloons were defective; some people used an ineffective technique. No balloon was ever observed inflating without someone or something blowing into it.
If we're talking causation/explanation, then step 1 is establishing correlation between two event types. So we have to be able to make separate observations of the putative causes and the effect we hope to explain.
That's it really.
What the source, or even cause, of these memories is, that's the question. You propose an answer to that question. So, on the one hand, there is the event of the consciousness leaving and then returning to the body, and, on the other hand, there are the memories of this event (or caused or brought about by the event).
I’d asked:
.
— Michael Ossipoff
.
You answered:
.
.
So you’re saying that a word can carry the “baggage” of dogma based on very little evidence or ancient writings that have very little support.
.
But what you’re proposing fits the accepted definition of reincarnation. It’s just a common noun with a definition that doesn’t, of itself, imply anything other than what you propose.
.
Anyway, the specific word “reincarnation” is Latin-derived, and wasn’t used in ancient India.
.
But then you said that the ancient notion of reincarnation, and all religions too, likely are based on the same NDE evidence that you speak of. That seems to contradict what you said about “very little evidence” and “very little support”, because you regard NDEs as good evidence and support.
.
I think that NDEs are valid, and in fact I question what it would mean to say that they aren’t. But I haven’t read any NDE reports that describe lives before the one that has just ended, and I’ve read lots of NDE reports. There couldn’t be many like that, and, as I was saying before, the really atypical reports don’t have the authority of the ones that so many people concur on.
.
I don’t mean to make an issue about the disagreement with you regarding the details of reincarnation. But “reincarnation” is a legitimate word for what you propose.
.
But we should always be careful about what we attribute to dogma, and about blanket statements about religion.
.
I can’t help but notice that the metaphysics of Vedanta agrees closely with the metaphysics that seems logically inevitable. As you said, ancientness doesn’t invalidate anything.
.
.
Evidence is broadly defined as any support for a position. Evidence in metaphysics needn’t be the same as evidence in physics or in court.
.
I’ve talked to people who believe that the only “evidence” is the kind that comes from physical measuring-instruments. I always encourage them to devote their efforts and discussion to engineering and physics.
.
Testimonial evidence counts for something. I don’t doubt the veracity of most NDE reports.
.
But a metaphysics can be completely supported by logical support. No magnetometers, Geiger-counters, calipers or weighing-scales needed. No testimonials needed.
.
.
Continuity of experience doesn’t require that we remember or know about it later.
.
Of course there are experiences that we don’t remember or know about later. It’s now known that most dreams aren’t remembered. We only remember the dreams that happen at or near the time when we wake up.
.
That doesn’t mean that we didn’t experience the other dreams, the ones that we don’t remember.
.
The reincarnation that I propose has continuity of experience. But, because past lives wouldn’t be remembered, then there can be no testimonial proof of it.
.
So far as I know, the only support for the reincarnation that I propose is that it’s consistent with, even implied by, inevitable metaphysics.
.
I gave the example of the mathematical definition of a continuous function. The continuity of a function is defined only at a point. A function is continuous if it meets certain requirements at every point.
.
(When I gave the definition of function continuity at x, I forgot to mention the requirement that the function has a value at x, and that that value is equal to the function’s limit as x is approached, from above and from below.)
.
Michael Ossipoff
I don't think the filters by themselves are defeaters of the disembodied consciousness claim - it is possible that there are some testimonies which satisfy all of them. I also don't think the argument I've made shows that 'disembodied consciousness is impossible'. What I take away from the rarity of the testimonials that satisfy all filters is that non-confounded veridical NDE candidates are rare, and that this rarity is consistent with true statements in NDE accounts arising from, and please forgive the loose phrasing, 'sampling from simulated environments within the NDEs' rather than an unusual perceptual event of the NDE-experiencer's environment.
If testimonials that satisfied all filters were not rare - for example if every NDE occurred when the subject was provably unconscious and the true statements they made were highly specific (not exploiting statistical regularities in medical procedure descriptions), and the testimonials were recorded without doctors' influences. - AND if these NDE testimonials provided many accurate, non-generic statements about their environment then the numerosity of these testimonies would be some evidence of NDE veridicality (without confounders).
Since there aren't many NDEs that go through the criteria, there isn't much evidence for accurate statements in NDE testimonies that arise without presence of a confounding factor. So there isn't much evidence for NDE veridicality (statements within NDEs that arise from unusual perceptual events rather than statistical regularities or the underlying confounders). This is effectively saying that the true sample size for studying the presence genuine NDE perceptual events is tiny within the list of 4000 testimonials.
http://www.newdualism.org/nde-papers/Greyson/Greyson-The%20Journal%20of%20Nervous%20and%20Mental%20Disease_1983-171-369-375.pdf
If you have time the following is also Dr. Greyson talking about consciousness at a conference. It's rather long though. If you want to go straight to his talk about NDEs, it starts at around 28:33.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aWM95RuMqU
I may have a few small problems with the methodology in the study - I need to close read it rather than skim to see what they're doing exactly with Pearson's R and Kronbeck's Alpha, also see how they're computing the correlation between the individual test items and their sum (usually an OK procedure). The worst bit of the methodology is that they don't use a statistical model to try and discriminate between people with high scores on the scale and people with low scores on the scale - just compare aggregate means, rather than assessing individual chance to be in a specific category. Generally this makes me suspicious because researchers using applied statistics should be able to do logistic regression (at least) to assess these questions. (paragraph beginning 'The criterion sample of NDE reporters...'
Regardless of these reservations - it does essentially what you described in one of your opening posts, a catalogue of common NDE experiences, then does a further grouping to allow the quantification of intensity of an NDE. The study is essentially 'what are the demographics of NDE experiences? what are the commonalities? how do these commonalities correlate? how do the individual commonalities correlate with overall NDE intensity?' - in essence an exercise in quantitative phenomenology.
This is in line with the limits of an observational study. They are asking no causal questions and bracket the issue of veridical NDE perception entirely (paragraph at the start, begins 'These near death experiences...'), and the question 'can we distinguish people who have had profound NDEs from people who sorta-kinda-maybe had them?' is consistent with it too (not that I think they addressed it very well).
Also absent from the report is an attempt to predict the content of an NDE from a specific individual - they do exactly as I said, provide a catalogue of overlapping categories and say 'it's probably some combination of those' (disjunctive events). And then they discuss the appropriateness of reducing the questionnaires through eliminating variables which do not correlate strongly with the test result - in essence removing some common NDE phenomenon to ease the discriminatory/categorisation question between profound NDEs and lesser ones.
Characteristics of Near-Death Experiences Memories as Compared to Real and Imagined Events Memories
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3609762/
And another interesting article for those of you who are interested.
https://books.google.com/books?id=110oDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT198&lpg=PT198&dq=statistical+analysis+of+near+death+experiences&source=bl&ots=rGwkDIdGsd&sig=UsTYfGpt08BAXwM6zKKUY5Gh9PY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKtaGWtfXWAhVGQiYKHaAWAhAQ6AEIZDAJ#v=onepage&q=statistical%20analysis%20of%20near%20death%20experiences&f=false
It's interesting that people who study Jujitsu for many years are people who have to let the ego go to some extent. No matter how good they are, or how much they think they know, they're going to get beat by someone. Many people drop out because they can't handle losing to someone that's ranked a little below them. It's only as people let go of their egos that they're able to progress and continue to learn. I've noticed that many philosophers, and people in general, will hold on to a belief because of ego, myself included, so I put this out there for those of you who are only interested in learning. It's also for those of you who aren't afraid to have your beliefs tested by others. All of us can be beaten, in terms of what we think we know.
Hey Sam.
Thanks for posting some links. Here's a quote from the first paper:
So these folks think NDEs are hallucinations rather than confabulations.
It's also a tiny, tiny study and I wonder whether those magic p-values mean anything at all.
The monitoring devices used to detect brain activity may be inadequate for detecting thought/belief formation.
On my view, consciousness consists of thought/belief. Thought/belief requires a physical world and an agent capable of drawing mental correlations between objects of physiological sensory perception and/or it's own 'state of mind'. I work from the conclusion that thought/belief is accrued, and the premiss that at conception we are born completely void thereof.
If that is true, then there is no way for consciousness to survive without a body.
However, if thought/belief continues to form and/or be remembered for some sufficient period of time after our current monitoring devices no longer detect brain activity and/or heart rate, then that would allow an NDE to happen and be remembered upon revival, although it wouldn't adequately explain the claims of one's own consciousness leaving one's own body and purportedly viewing the body from beyond it.
I try to keep the conclusions in terms of what I think I know to a minimum, and I try to separate that from speculation. Although, there is a middle ground where it's not totally speculative, that is, there is some evidence, but I don't categorize it as knowledge. It's more of a strong belief based on good evidence, just not strong evidence. The best example I can give is that instead of it being 90% probable it might only be 50-60% probable.
Plato says that if souls are merely the “harmonies” of the physical parts of the body then those with greater or lesser bodies have greater or lesser souls.
I work with individuals with disabilities and injuries and this argument speaks directly to my daily experiences. If our minds and indenties are based entirely off physical brain functions that people are naturally greater or lesser quality based on the quality or fiction of these structures and their function. A person with greater dendrite density in speech areas with greater verbal abilities is superior to a person lacking this enhanced variance. Even greater are both these typical individuals versus a child with cognitive impairments or an adult with a brain injury or stroke affecting their speech.
People born with lesser cognitive capacity or those who suffer injuries to their brain are inherently lesser human beings if there is no non-physical enduring source of worth.
This is then simmilar to Kant’s argument for God based on the need for justice. It is monsterous to imagine there are people with lesser or greater souls therefore souls must be independent of the body and must endure beyond bodily ills. If the soul is impervious to bodily injury it would then be impervious to death.
That's absolutely the right attitude.Complete skepticism, and willingness to listen to refutations of our claims.
Michael Ossipoff
I don't think there is any deductive proof that will work, that is, that proves the existence of the soul. I would argue that you don't need a proof to have knowledge.
If one defines greater or lesser in terms of one's ability to do X, then I guess there are greater and lesser souls or persons. I believe that persons have intrinsic worth that goes beyond one's ability, and that one's intrinsic worth demands that we treat people with respect, and that we treat them justly. I don't believe this is dependent upon one's belief in God, or some other lawgiver. I believe one could make an argument in terms of justice or other moral issues based on the nature of human beings, or on the basis of what it means to be a person (person, for me is a much broader definition). Much of what we believe about these moral issues is dependent of course on one's world view.
I don't see how it's monstrous to believe there are persons with greater or lesser souls. Unless one thinks that that gives one the right to treat persons with a lesser soul unjustly. I don't happen to think that justice is a matter of opinion, that is, I see it more objectively. Moreover, I see it this way apart from my belief about an afterlife. Even if one believes that when we die that's the end of our existence, this still doesn't give someone the right to act unjustly.
There is also something more to what I believe, that goes beyond the physical. I don't believe that we can ultimately be harmed if the NDE reports are accurate. And since harm is an essential property of evil or immoral actions, then ultimately there is no evil. There is only what we refer to as evil in terms of this reality. So is there evil? Yes and no, there is evil in terms of how we describe certain acts in this reality, but ultimately there is no evil, because ultimately we cannot be harmed. When I say ultimately, I mean in a higher consciousness or awareness, thus a higher reality. That higher reality is where our identity resides, where all our memories and experiences reside.
There is no doubt that our bodies are harmed, and that we feel pain in this reality, but if when we die this is all mitigated, then ultimately there is no evil. Thus, in a sense, there is no evil in terms of requiring justice. Especially if it's true that we chose to come into this existence knowing what we would experience. This, I believe, would also solve the problem of evil.
Think of this reality as a lower level of consciousness, and a lower level of sensory perceptions. The best analogy is that of a dream. In a dream all of our memories, knowledge, and experiences reside in our waking body. While we are dreaming we may experience dream pain, dream knowledge, and dream experiences, but once we wake up everything is expanded, and much of what we experienced in the dream is mitigated by our higher level of consciousness. It's not that we didn't have the dream experiences, it's that the dream experiences don't have the impact we thought they did. The same is true when one compares this reality with an even higher level of reality or sensory experiences. Much of what we experience here is also mitigated, especially in terms of harm.
Sure, I only meant complete skepticism with regard to metaphysics.
...complete skepticism about metaphysical assumptions, and any notion that metaphysics applies to Reality.
Michael Ossipoff
But what if reality is monstrous? IMO, it's hard not to love the intelligent more than the unintelligent, the healthy more the sick, the beautiful more than the ugly. One might decide that life isn't fair. A cynical or critical mind could postulate that philosophers often work to cover up this monstrousness. Ideas of cosmic justice or God can be viewed as "shields" against the otherwise blatant injustice and cruelty of reality.
Parenting comes to mind. Parents try to be fair. They try to create a "little world" for their children, where children are rewarded and punished justly, always for their own good in the context of unconditional love. One could theorize that theodicies are ways that adults try to continue this situation past childhood. One might argue that we dream up immortal souls because it's just too painful to see the little girl die of cancer or the brain-damaged adult float through life as a dependent. Of course we don't want to really die, too.
Obviously this is all up for debate. But some thinkers do engage with monstrous possibilities.
I couldn't have summed-up the Atheist Materialist world view, and its conclusions and consequences any better than that.
Michael Ossipoff
I've already discussed Materialism's brute-fact problem.
When there's a metaphysics that doesn't have an assumption or a brute-fact, then a brute-fact amounts to a disqualification.
When there's an inevitable metaphysics, then a metaphysics that just adds unfalsifiable assumptions is superfluous, and disqualified for all meaningful intents and purposes.
Michael Ossipoff
I agree with some of what you're saying, but what one believes in terms of their world view should hang on the evidence to support the argument. For example, even if there is good evidence to support an immortal soul, people will still want to believe it because it gives them hope. However, if you're just believing something because it sounds good, or it gives you hope, that's not a reason to believe.
For me the materialist world view is almost as bad in some ways as a religious view, both tend to be very dogmatic and self-sealing.
This is well said and I agree! There is an intrinsic worth to every human being.
You say it need not neccesarily come from God. That’s okay, because you still hold that it is real. I posted a while ago about a mystic’ s version of Pascal’s wager. Even if God doesn’t exist and there is no objective meaning (two seperate claims, its plausible to have objective meaning without God) then there is still philosophy. This forum alone proves it. Philosophy is the noble endeavor to find meaning or if it cannot be found to create it. Believing in the intrinsic worth of every person is exactly part of this endeavor and our faith in advancing this cause can never be in vain. Even if it is a pointless hope, is it not better to hope than dispair? I know this is a bit off topic but your made a perfect example of this point.
I agree that’s there’s no deductive proof. I hardly expect to every persuade someone away from an opposing view. Rather I use arguments to increase my own confidence in my beliefs so that they are not unexamined. The best I can hope for is a plausible explanation for reality that in internally consistent and accounts for the majority of phenomena.
Plato is surprisingly good at that. My philosophy 101 class did him poor justice.
You’ve been a philosopher longer than I’ve been living then (I’m 35)
2000 for me, but as a philosophy major we touched on Plato and his forms and then left him in the dust. I spent most of my rest of my time on more modern philosophy. It was a shame. Really it was a Lutheran theology program anyways. Spoon feeding answers.
I picked back my interest in theology and philosophy after gradschool (in an unrelated field of rehab therapy)
I can relate. I think that's what we all do. We have certain "investments," and we argue with ourselves about "live" options, options that we can tolerate or live with. Some find a certain freedom and even beauty in a monstrous vision of reality that includes our genuine mortality. It makes the world terrible and wonderful, like a "cold" God as found in Job. But for others this just doesn't feel right. So I don't think it's about pure reason. It's a wrestling within one's self.
I agree. I think views are generally dogmatic and self-sealing. I don't relate to materialism myself. To me it's too theoretical, too abstract. It's not "material" enough. It "theorizes" the given. "Matter" is an abstraction. What I believe in is life as I know: people, sunrises, books, hot baths, cold winter winds, etc. These are the primary "givens" over which we paint our abstractions. We say that the experienced object is "really" matter or mind or whatever. But for me it's "really" what it seems to be. Or rather the lifeworld is central and all abstractions are tools within the lifeworld, useful ways of looking at the lifeworld. I'm really enjoying 1920s Heidegger right now, if that provides context.
Quoting Sam26
I happen to agree with you, but this does presuppose a worldview in which evidence should be hung on to in order to support arguments. In other words, it presupposes that rationality is virtuous. As philosophers, we are likely to agree to that. I like being able to give an account of my beliefs. But that belief itself is "groundless" or aesthetically grounded.
Really? Lots of atheistic materialist are quite moral. I think of Karl Marx and Ludwig Feuerbach. I can see them, however, from Stirner's perspective. They are essentially pious. All that really changes is that God is incarnated in Humanity. Religion becomes political. The classes society to come replaces Heaven. The revolutionary intellectuals replace the priests. To me what's most interesting is the structure of the "sacred" or of value itself. I say look at the hierarchy implied by the view. Who comes out on top? Who is the hero?
I think of myself as a highly unorthodox Christian, so unorthodox that I look like an atheist. But that's what the cross means, the death of God. And we "take up this cross" by accepting our own mortality and living like dying gods in the world we have. We are no longer beneath the Law that is alien or other than us. "Christ is the end of the Law."
The best argument against the mind being brain-function, is that the mind can change brain function. That is one of the key findings of neuro-plasticity. It's also been the subject of much interesting research. Now if changes always flowed from brain>mind, this couldn't happen; as it is, mind>brain changes happen quite frequently.
***
There was an opinion piece published a while back in Scientific American, by physicist (and physicalist) Sean Carroll, called Physics and the Immortality of the Soul. Carroll argues that belief in any kind of life after death is equivalent to the belief that the Moon is made from green cheese - that is to say, ridiculous.
But this assertion is made, I contend, because of the presuppositions that the writer brings to the question. In other words, he depicts the issue in such a way that it would indeed be ridiculous to believe it. But this is because of a deep misunderstanding about the very nature of the issue.
Carroll says:
I can think of a straightforward answer to this question, which is that the soul is not 'made of particles'. In fact the idea that the soul is 'made of particles' is not at all characteristic of what is meant by the term 'soul'. (Jains and Stoics both believe in ultra-fine material particles that comprise the soul, or karma, but we'll leave that aside for this argument.)
But I think the soul could more easily be conceived in terms of a biological field that provides an organising principle analogous to the physical and magnetic fields that were discovered during the 19th century, that were found to be fundamental to the behaviour of particles. This is not to say that the soul is a field, but that it might at least be a more fruitful metaphor.
Morphic Fields
Just as magnetic fields organise iron filings into predictable shapes, so too could a biological field effect be responsible for the general form and the persistence of particular attributes of an organism. The question is, is there any evidence of such fields?
Well, the existence of 'morphic fields' is the brainchild of Rupert Sheldrake, the 'scientific heretic' who claims in a Scientific American interview that:
As the morphic field is capable of storing and transmitting remembered information, then 'the soul' could be conceived in such terms. The morphic field does, at the very least, provide an explanatory metaphor.
Children with Past-Life Memories
But what, then, is the evidence for such effects in respect to 'life after death'? As it happens, a researcher by the name of Ian Stevenson assembled a considerable body of data on children with recall of previous lives. Stevenson's data collection comprised the methodical documentation of a child’s purported recollections of a previous life. Then he identified from journals, birth-and-death records, and witnesses the deceased person the child supposedly remembered, and attempted to validate the facts that matched the child’s memory. Yet another Scientific American opinion piece notes that Stevenson even matched birthmarks and birth defects on his child subjects with wounds on the remembered deceased that could be verified by medical records.
Carroll, again
Carroll goes on in his piece to say that 'Everything we know about quantum field theory (QFT) says that there aren’t any sensible answers to these questions (about the persistence of consciousness)'. However, that springs from his starting assumption that 'the soul' must be something physical, which, again, arises from the presumption that everything is physical. In other words, it is directly entailed by his belief in the exhaustiveness of physics with respect to the description of what is real.
He then says 'Believing in life after death, to put it mildly, requires physics beyond the Standard Model. Most importantly, we need some way for that "new physics" to interact with the atoms that we do have.'
However, even in ordinary accounts of 'mind-body' medicine, it is clear that mind can have physical consequences and effects on the body. This is the case with, for example, psychosomatic medicine and the placebo effect, but there are many other examples.
He finishes by observing:
But that is not what 'most people have in mind'. That is what physicalists have in mind - because that is how physicalists think. If you start from the understanding that 'everything is physical', then this will indeed dictate the way you think about such questions. And it is indeed the case that there is no such 'blob' as Carroll imagines; never has been or will be. That is not what 'spirit' is; but what it is, is something that can't be understood, given the presuppositions you're starting from - although I rather like the German term for it, which is 'geist'.
So the key point of this is to refrain from thinking of the soul an ethereal entity; it's more a process. The Buddhists don't believe in 'soul' as an unchanging essence, but they do accept the reality of re-birth; the key term in Buddhist philosophy is citta santana, which is usually translated as 'mind-stream'; a process, rather than an unchanging essence, but one that hangs together across different lives.
Some beliefs are groundless, but not all beliefs. Many of our beliefs have a causal explanation. I would say that the causal connection between much of what we believe and psychological factors is very strong. Even if we claim to have a strong argument for a particular belief, the psychology of belief can be even more compelling, that is, in terms of why we believe what we do. For example, things like ego, culture, family, friends, religion, politics, world views, and many other narratives, have a much stronger pull on our belief system than we like to admit. Probably much stronger than any argument are these causal factors.
Thanks for the breakdown of the article.
As a Platonist I’m starting to believe all sorts of things that seem ridiculous at first glance.
Carrol seems to also being getting really hung up on the soul as a “thing”. Immaterial means that it can’t be some fine essence or special field or exist in a particular location, since that would be material.
Personally, while I think some aspect of us must be an eternal soul (Plato makes multiple compelling arguments and since I believe in God it pretty much follows) I’m not exactly sure what our soul is comprised of. At the least, it could just be the divine spark within us (God’s illumination itself) combined with the fact that we are eternally known and remembered to God.
I also think karma flows from life to life and karma is a highly misunderstood concept. As you said in Buddhism there is no self and only our karma gets reincarnated. Though the Dali Lama claims to have recollected his past lives but he’s also the supposed incarnation of a bodhisattva. So it’s complicated for sure. So I’ll only this basic understanding. In my life I create karmic energy and attachments thru my deeds. These actions effect everyone else. Once I’m dead the ripples of my deeds continues weather or not I have a seperate soul that’s lifted out of the pool.
I like the idea that only our virtuous parts are immortal. That after or thru death we are purified. So our bases, unilluminated natures are purified away. Take the classic example of Hitler, how much of his life was virtuous? I’ve read he treated his dogs well maybe but he also poisoned them. So in the afterlife, there isn’t much of a virtuous Hitler but there is some like the mere fact he existed. So the Hitler I meet in “heaven” is pretty different than the one on earth (who no longer exists). Rather, a holy saint will be less changed and the old parts of him/her will delight in having been refined. Complete repentance would also be purifying..
You bet. Actually the nature of re-birth is highly contentious on Buddhist forums itself, threads about it often get locked. I don't think anyone really understands it until attaining real insight into the chain of dependent origination. But it's a definite error to believe there's a literal entity that transmigrates from life to life. I think, again, that is the inveterate tendency of the mind to project qualities and attributes onto things and people. This is where Buddhism is radically different to Aristotelian metaphysics - it denies the entire schema of 'substance and attribute'.
As someone who is very interested in both Platonism and Buddhism, this can create some cognitive dissonance. After all, The Apology is all about 'the state of the soul', and this is just what the Buddha appears to deny. But these conceptions occur in two radically separated domains of discourse. (Although, incidentally, Buddhists don't deny hell - the Buddhist hells in traditional literature are numerous and ghastly, although they're not eternal.)
In any case, you're right, that the physicalist error is to reify anything and everything. It's considerably more subtle than they could imagine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKyQJDZuMHE
Second NDE of blind person.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA8L9W7KiOo
Re: the hell stuff. It's curious how misrepresented Buddhism appears in the west, especially by Harris and Blackmore. I suspect the 'hell' stuff and all elements of the supernatural are disregarded by most of them.
See this article relevant to this thread (I was searching Blackmore and her argument against AP ect):
https://www.near-death.com/science/articles/dying-brain-theory.html
Quoting Blackmore
Absolutely! I am in a perpetual state of cognitive dissonance.
There is one very important common ground between Plato and Zen though which is awareness of one’s ignorance. I love how Socrates is the wisest because he knows he does not know and is adept at pointing out the ignorance of others.
Seung Sahn is a Korean zen teacher, now passed, whose focuses on the not knowing mind.
I know Seung Sahn. That aspect of Zen is indeed very Socratic.
The writer in the piece generally (in her Dennett articles or when she is reviewing global workspace theory) denies there is a such a thing as a stream of consciousness or a time when things come together to complete a person. She's also a materialist monist and so reminds me most of Harris' (imo vile) free will article where he says that if you switched atoms with Joshua Komisarjevsky you would be that person.
I know little about Buddhism, but the hell description surprised me in that it would seem to necessarily entail an individual subject that experiences consequences after death. I know less about Secular Buddhism but from the very brief article I read, it sounds something that is occurring in the west since the Enlightenment. I will look into it more when I have time.
Post #1
I'm going to try to give those of you who are interested the best picture I can of what we are experiencing in this reality, that is, what is it all about. I'm also going to divide my degree of certainty from between 1 and 5. Five being the most certain, and one being the least certain. However, even the 1 will be based on some testimonial evidence. I'm estimating here, but the degree of certainty of a 1 is about 50-60%, 2 is 60-70%, 3 is 70-80%, 4 is 80-90%, and finally 5 is 90-99%. I will also speculate about some things, but even the speculation will be based on some evidence, however, it will be lower than a 1, but not zero evidence. So if there is a number attached to a statement, that number will reflect how certain I think I am about the statement. Keep in mind that even a number 1 is based on thousands and thousands of testimonials. A number 5 is based on millions of testimonial reports. My sampling is around 4000, so I'm extrapolating.
Before going on let me say a few things about why I'm not putting much stock in religious interpretations. After examining the testimonials across many cultures I have found, and many others who have examined the evidence have found, that, for example, if someone sees a being of light, they will probably interpret the being of light as some religious figure. So it's not that they didn't see a being, but that their interpretation of that being tends to be conflated with their religious and/or cultural beliefs (degree of certainty is 4-5). Those of you who are trying to fit NDEs into your religious views are doing, in my opinion, a disservice to the testimonials.
Let me give an example of how I interpreted some of the testimonials about hell. I do this to give you an idea of how I examined these testimonials, which can be based as much on what is said, as opposed to what is not said.
As I said in post #1 how we interpret what we see is often influenced by religious and cultural biases. Thus someone who feels fear or is in a dark place may feel they're in hell. Keep in mind that negative reports, or negative NDEs are a small portion of the total NDEs, most are positive. Moreover, out of the portion of negative reports, an even smaller percentage are hell like. However, there is more to this than it just being a small percentage of the reports. For example, what's not said to people who have these experiences, or even to those who don't have hell like experiences, is that you're in danger of going to hell. You would think that people who see loved ones who have died, or even other beings that display love to a much higher degree than is felt here, that there would be some warning that you're in danger of hell. I see no such warnings, even when people are given a life review, that is, the life review is non-judgmental. Furthermore, people are seeing their deceased loved ones who were atheists or non-believers (non-Christian for e.g.) in a state of love and joy that belies the notion of eternal damnation. So what's my degree of certainty that there isn't a hell, like the one described by Christians? At least a 4-5.
So why are we here? The question that comes to my mind is, why do we choose to come to a place like this? Imagine a place where there is very little or even no pain. Also imagine a place where the relationships we have with others is far superior to anything we can experience here. Where our access to knowledge is unimaginably superior to what we have here. A place where communication is mind-to-mind, with probably little chance of any misunderstandings. A place where love is not limited to a few people you know, but is accessed and shared amongst many billions of persons. The intensity of the love and other positive emotions is not only shared on a scale unimaginable here, but you also seem to have access to it in ways we don't have here. In a sense it's the perfect place to live, and it's our home, where we reside, possibly as being of pure light, united into a sea of pure consciousness, or pure mind (my certainty of us being beings of pure consciousness or mind is around 1, maybe lower).
Now imagine that you have access to an unlimited source of realities or universes that you can exist in, and that you can experience almost anything you can imagine, by choosing to enter those realities. However, you hear of a reality that's really tough, that if you go there you won't remember where you're from, and that you'll have very limited knowledge. You will also be able to choose a body that will limit you in many other ways. Moreover, you choose to come with people and friends you know, so it's a kind of collective experience. This place is very similar to a holographic program, and as a human in the program you will get to experience something that's very foreign to you, i.e., pain. Being in the bodies we choose will make you susceptible to all sorts of painful experiences. You're told that it's going to be an extremely difficult life, but you'll get to choose various narratives to live out, and even choose how and when you will die. You may choose to live out a particular religious narrative, atheistic narrative, scientific narrative, family narrative, etc. Much of what you experience in this reality will be pre-planned, but you will be free to respond within these narratives based on your limited knowledge of right and wrong, and based on your limited bodily abilities. So you have some freedom of choice, but not complete freedom. Furthermore what we choose to experience doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what we want to experience, but with what others may want to experience. So we may come just to help others have certain kinds of experiences (most of the ideas in this paragraph fall between 3 and 4 on the certainty scale).
I'm going to speculate a bit more, and I have little to no evidence that this is the case. If this is indeed a giant holographic program or reality, then it might be the case that some of the people in the program aren't even real, they're just part of the program. And why not, because one of the ways to control the program would be by controlling some of the entities within the program. Maybe even some people are completely aware of what's going on, that is, they're just playing a part in the program.
Finally, there is no one reason why we come here. Instead there are many reasons why we choose to come here. First, we gain experiential knowledge of what it's like to be human, and we test ourselves in ways we've never been tested before.
Wayfarer & MysticMonist—
.
(I wrote this in Word, and I didn’t want to post it till I got it the way I wanted it. But I don’t know if I’ve really neatened it up enough. But I was fairly careful and conscientious about that.)
.
I try not to be, and don’t want to seem, dogmatically “know-it-all” or overconfident in my metaphysical claims, but I think that if there are or might be metaphysical certainties, then they’re worth considering.
.
1. MysticMonist—
.
Regarding your post about disadvantageous births, bodily-injury, and fairness, as relates to Materialism vs souls:
.
Materialism is a grim, pseudoscientific, fraudulent accountant, and its account of what happens to us is dire, as you described.
.
In contrast:
.
The Idealism that I’ve been proposing, an Eliminative Ontic Structural Anti-Realism, implies an openness, looseness and lightness.
.
There needn’t be any solid, concrete, objective basis for physical “reality”.
.
(Of course I’m not claiming that that’s original)
.
Experience is metaphysically primary (I understand that some have reasonably spoken of “Will” as the basic component of experience). What would a physical world or even abstract facts and objects mean without experiencers?
.
A possibility-world and its component abstract facts obtain for someone. …a life-experience possibility-story is about someone’s experience.
.
The Materialist fraudulent accountant says that life and whatever is good is a commodity in limited supply.
.
No, Life is timelessly there, for, relevant to, in relation to, and because of us.
.
As for death, we can all agree that it’s like going to sleep. A well-deserved rest and peace & quiet. For one thing, that’s an end to whatever ordeals we had in life, and the experience ends with peaceful rest. That’s another thing that we can all agree with.
.
There’s nothing wrong with going to sleep—It happens daily.
.
Of course, as Shakespeare pointed out, sleep has dreams, and the experiential details are another question. …one that we probably can’t know for sure (When we get there, we’re too unconscious (lacking in waking-consciousness) to know that we’ve found out). We needn’t agree on the experiential details in the sleep at the end of a life.
.
It’s now known that we don’t remember most dreams—only the ones that occur at or near the time when we wake up. And, in those dreams, we don’t know that there’s this waking-life.
.
That’s experience that we don’t remember, during which we didn’t know about our waking life. …suggesting caution in ruling-out metaphysically-implied experiences after death.
.
No one would deny that this life is temporary. Our experience is Timeless—a statement that I’ve justified in various posts to these forums.
.
The NDEs are early immediate after-death experiences, but I’m referring to later experiences.
.
I suggest (I’ve talked about it in other topics) that probably it usually leads to a next life, because obviously, whatever is the reason for this life starting, and if that reason remains later, then what does that suggest?
.
Just a plausible suggestion.
.
I’ve posted at length about that in other topic-threads.
.
…and also about the Timelessness at the end of lives. No one ever reaches “oblivion”, or the time when the body is entirely shut-down and no longer supports experience, perception or awareness. Only your survivors will experience that time.
.
I suggest that, at the end of lives, shortly before complete body-shutdown and fully complete unconsciousness, of course there already isn’t waking-consciousness, and the person, at that late stage of shutdown, is far past any knowledge or memory regarding life, identity, time or events, or that there could even be such things. …and has reached Timelessness.
.
Eastern traditions suggest that very few people get that far into the shutdown at the end of their life, because, before that stage of shutdown, while their unconscious life-related inclinations and feelings (including “Will”) remain, those remaining life-inclinations mean that they’re in a life-experience story. …the beginning of one, because those subconscious life inclinations, feelings and identity are an early beginning experience in a life.
.
But I admit that those end-of-life experience suggestions are speculative. All that we can agree on for sure is that the end of a life is like going to sleep.
.
So I’ll just emphasize something that’s more certain—the lightness, open-ness, and looseness of metaphysical reality.
.
…a metaphysical reality without lack, final loss, or some sort of limited supply—There’s nothing concretely, objectively existent anyway.
.
…in contrast to the pessimistic, closed, and grim account that we’ve always been told.
---------------------------------------------------------
2. Wayfarer & Mystic Monist—
.
You spoke of spirit and soul. Are you referring to a Dualism or an Idealism? I think that, contrary to the poll-result, most people here are Idealists (as am I).
.
I regard Experience (some people emphasize “Will”) as metaphysically primary, but I don’t think that’s inconsistent with my claim that the animal (including the person) is unitary and can’t be divided into mind and body, soul and body, or spirit and body.
.
I claim that there’s a principle of complentarity or correspondence, such that even though experience and experiencer are metaphysically primary--nonetheless, in the physical story, the experiencer is the body, the animal, part of the physical world that is the setting for the life-experience possibility-story. It can be discussed either way. I mean, how could it not be, if the experience-story is to be consistent?
.
With respect to the “physical story” (the account in terms of the physical world), I’ve defined “experience” as a purposefully-responsive device’s surroundings & events, in the context of that purposefully-defined device’s built-in purposes (“Will”), with any acquired modifications.
.
That different description of experience, from a different point-of-view, the “physical story” point of view, isn’t inconsistent with taking experience as metaphysically primary.
.
Soul, Consciousness, Mind or Sprit could just be another word for Experiencer, in which case I don’t disagree with those terms.
.
So is it reasonable to suggest that the Soul, Conscious or Spirit that you’ve both referred to could just be another word for Experiencer?
.
The purposefully responsive device (animal, in our case) that we are, and our surroundings, are the possibility-world that is the setting for our life-experience possibility-story. But that experience is metaphysically primary. Or it could be said that we, the experiencer, are primary…as that animal. The animal and its experience are metaphysically prior to its surroundings, a possibility-world, that (in the physical story) produced it, and of which it’s made.
.
I’ve never understood what Buddhist metaphysics was saying, and evidently there are many mutually-contradictory versions. For example I don’t know what it means to say that there isn’t anyone. But it’s true that there’s no one for things to happen to. We, as a purposefully-responsive device, have our hereditary and acquired preferences and purposes that we pursue. Of course that includes doing our best to protect ourselves and to last as long as possible. But if we’re doing that, and doing our best at it, then whatever else happens isn’t our fault. We’re here to do our best. That’s it. We aren’t here for things to happen to. Adverse things that “happen to us” are part of the score-keeping narrative, but our purposes are only about a whole other subject—pursuing our purposes, including self-preservation, as well as we can.
.
You find suggestions about that in various Eastern writings, about our effort, not the outcome, being what we’re about. …and about the fact that there’s a meaningful sense in which dealing with something nullifies it.
.
In fact, it’s also said on a familiar “Desiderata” wall-plaque.
.
Maybe we can learn something from simpler, manmade, purposefully-responsive devices: A mousetrap, thermometer or refrigerator light-switch doesn’t care if it goes out of commission and ceases to exist. Its job and sole concern was just to fulfill its built-in purpose while possible. It isn’t wired for an unreasonable insistence on survival.
.
Maybe it was natural-selection-adaptive for us to always have a strong wish to survive and thrive, even when it’s impossible, and our time is past—just so that we’d make ourselves survive if there turned out to be even the slightest unexpected opportunity. I suggest, and I think it’s been suggested before, that it’s sometimes better to overcome that instinctive inclination, when it’s causing unnecessary unhappiness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, as I’ve described elsewhere, the life-experience possibility-story and its possibility-world-setting are hypothetical systems of inter-referring if-then facts about hypotheticals.
.
I’ve been criticized for claiming that those abstract logical facts, and the complex inter-referring systems of them that are our experience-stories and possibility-worlds, are inevitable.
.
But how could they not be? The abstract facts are just inevitably “there”, aren’t they? …at least subject to there being someone to experience them.
.
So how could those abstract facts, and complex systems of them (among the infinity of which there must inevitably be one whose events and relations match those of our physical universe), not be?
.
Unlike with MUH, I’m not saying that such a possibility-world has relevance or meaningful existence without observers/experiencers. I’ve said that Experience and Experiencer are primary.
.
So, nothing that I’m claiming conflicts with what you’ve said about Spirit, Soul, Mind, Consciousness.
.
I’ve been saying that all of it is an inevitable system of inter-referring inevitable logical relational facts about hypotheticals. But I’ve probably overstated that case a bit, by making it sound as if logical if-then facts about hypotheticals are metaphysically fundamental and primary.
.
But of course the physical world--a logical-system--and the abstract logical facts of which it consists, wouldn’t mean anything without observers, experiencers. Some say that’s even true of abstract logical facts and other abstract objects, and that statement makes sense to me. They “are”, as part of our experience.
.
So we’re really the center of our whole life-experience possibility-story and its setting. It’s centered on, and about, our experience. …as a system consistent with our experience. With no one to notice those logical facts and other abstract objects, they wouldn’t have meaning. That’s a familiar position, of course. What would it mean to say that there could be a universe or a logical system without anyone to experience it?
.
But even though we and our experience are primary, and though we’re the “why” of our physical world, I like it that the “how” isn’t in question. The “how” needn’t be asked, because the experience-story and its possibility-world are inevitable complex logical systems, whose existence (at least subject to there being experiencers) doesn’t need any explanation..
.
Maybe that’s why Nisargadatta once said that we didn’t create our world, but we’re the reason for its meaning and relevance.
.
We’re the “why” of our life-experience story, but it and its possibility-world, as a system of inevitable logical facts, doesn’t need a “how” (or is it’s its own “how”) .
.
So I’m suggesting that the metaphysics that I’ve been proposing is consistent with your statements, and also doesn’t leave any “how” questions.
.
So I claim that there’s knowable inevitable metaphysics, and that definite things can be said, with certainty, about metaphysics.
.
That’s just metaphysics though. I don’t agree with Tegmark that such a metaphysics is an explanation of Reality. Physics and metaphysics are only each about a limited aspect, domain or subset of Reality.
.
Regarding what you mentioned about God and justice—I don’t use the word justice, but many feel that there’s goodness in what is, and a reason for gratitude, and there’s a feeling that there’s good intent behind the goodness of what is.
.
Michael Ossipoff
But, as we all know, it's the sine qua non, in order for a world to have meaning or relevance.
We experiencers arise as part of the possibility-world that is the setting for our life-experience possibiity-story ...a world consisting of inevitable abstract facts. (But those facts might not be so inevitable without us)
So we don't have independent existence, independent of our world. It's just that it would't mean anything without us. And, arguably, speaking of the abstract facts, themselves, wouldn't be meaningful without experiencers.either.
...a world dependent for meaning on something that is part of it and arises in it..Circular, but that's ok.
We're a part and result of a world that wouldn't be meaningful or relevant without us.
Isn't it true?:A universe wouldn't exist or be real in any meaningful or relevant sense without someone to experience it?
A logical system seems a little less dependent on us. We can speak of a logical system without observers, but if there really weren't any, {i]then[/i] who'd talk about it?
So a universe, and maybe even a logical system, has to be relevant to someone. In that way, experiencers are at the top if the reality hierarchy--even if we're a result and product of a possibiity-world. That's why I called experiencers and experience metaphysically primary.
Sure, by "relevant" I mean "relevant to someone", and so a universe isn't relevant to someone unless there's someone--That's a tautology (and circular?). That's ok, isn't it? It's ok with me :)
All this has a tenuous and wispy sort of reality/existence, and that's ok too.
Michael Ossipoff
Ii guess what I meant by that was just that, when I said that having us (experiencers) makes a universe more relevant....to us....
...that sounds a bit animal-chauvinistic.
"Alright", said the Giraffe, "then let's just say the one with the longest neck gets all the jellybeans."
I don't suppose it makes sense to declare an absolute official standard for a universe's existence/realness, based on whether it has us (or someone like us). Maybe philosophy should be more objective than that.
But, where there are experiencers (us), then of course it makes sense to define their (our) world as centered around them (us),.. because that's the nature of experience.
...justifying my emphasis on life-experience possibility-stories.
It's inevitable and natural that, among the infinitely-many possibility-worlds, there will be experiencers. We're natural and inevitable.
We and our experience naturally seem like everything, to us.
Michael Ossipoff
Continuing with where I believe the evidence leads (post #1 starts on page 9 of this thread).
Whether one agrees with my claim that consciousness doesn't reside in the brain or not, one thing seems clear, and that is, there are levels of consciousness. And it also seems clear that it would follow that there would be similarities between moving from one level of consciousness to another level of consciousness. It also seems very clear that the fact that there are levels of consciousness is not in itself evidence that consciousness doesn't reside in the brain. However, taken together with NDE accounts, it seems very probable that consciousness is not dependent on brain function or brain activity, that is, it's certainly reasonable to make this inference. Moreover, my argument is dependent on the veracity of the testimonials, and as far as I understand this is the only credible evidence that demonstrates that consciousness is not brain dependent.
Although the main contention of this thread is to demonstrate that there are good reasons to conclude that consciousness doesn't reside in the brain, and that this is the strongest conclusion one can make based on the testimonials. However, in these numbered posts I also believe that there are other conclusions one can make based on the testimonials, but that most of the conclusions aren't as likely or as probable as the conclusion that consciousness is not brain dependent.
This particular post will reiterate the importance, I believe, of comparing a level of consciousness that we are all aware of, with what happens in an NDE. In particular what happens when moving from a lower level of consciousness to a higher level, and conversely, moving from a higher level of consciousness to a lower level of consciousness. So the analogy I'm speaking of is the analogy between dream states and waking states, and waking states and NDEs. We know, for example, that moving into a dream state is moving from a higher level of awareness to a lower level of awareness. We also know that in lower levels of consciousness we don't have full access to our waking sensory experiences, nor do we have full access to our waking memories, and it would also follow that don't have access to our waking knowledge. It's also important to note that the passage of time is distorted, at least the way time is perceived. For example, in dream states we may perceive that many minutes have passed, when in fact, it was only seconds. This distortion is also seen when moving from waking states to the experience of an NDE. When moving into an NDE the passage of time seems much slower than what we normally experience, that is, it appears that in NDEs we perceive to have been there much longer. For example, many NDErs report that it seemed like years, decades, even centuries passed while they were there. Of course when they come back into this reality only minutes, hours, or days have passed. The conclusion seems to indicate that the passage of time in lower states of consciousness seem much longer than they actually are. Dream states are shorter in duration when compared to waking reality, and waking reality is shorter in duration when compared to an NDE.
So if NDEs are higher levels of consciousness we should find that the experiences have very similar effects. When moving from dream states to waking states our sensory experiences are definitely heightened, our memories are more complete, our knowledge is more complete, and the passage of time changes. NDErs report these very same things, and this it seems to me adds to the veracity of the reports. How? I doubt that any of the NDErs would know the correlation between these states of consciousness, yet their reports conform to these perceptual changes. For example, they report that they have heightened sensory perceptions. Their are many vision reports that talk about expanded vision, colors that they have never seen before, and there is some evidence that the blind are able to see while in an NDE. There are also many reports of knowledge being expanded, and memories returning. This is what should happen based on what we know about moving into higher states of consciousness, that is, we have an example of this when moving from dream states to waking states.
This idea of absolute or relative "levels of awareness" sounds highly implausible given the close correspondence of OBEs, NDEs and lucid dreaming and how each supposedly distinct category of experience lacks any essential identifier, with examples of each 'category' spanning the conceivable spectrum of conscious experience, each example emphasising different sensory modalities and parts of volitional agency, language processing, attention and memory , that aren't always amplified or attenuated in the same direction.
I claim that the only support for there being reincarnation comes from implication from metaphysics.
NDE reports are very compelling evidence of experiences at the beginning of death. ...experience-reports that strongly suggest that (non-suicide) death isn't a bad thing at all, when it's time for it.
I've read lots of NDE reports, and I haven't encountered one that reports about lives before the one that's ending. If those reports are rare, then they don't share the compellingness and convincingness of the many, many other NDE reports.
There's probably reincarnation, because it's metaphysically-implied. But there's no convincing testimonial evidence for it. Nor can there be, based on metaphysical considerations, and metaphysical support for claims.
And there's no metaphysical explanation or support for a claim that people can remember past lives.
But what's the difference? Why would it be important whether or not people remember past lives?
Michael Ossipoff
Those testimonial reports about past-lives, where people report details of a past life, which are later confirmed by records-checking, aren't convincing. Here's why:
The available historical-records, by which those reports are checked, are also available to a hoaxer, or an impressionable kid, or a subconsciously-coaching parent.
What would be proof? Howabout if someone reported a past-life that's in our future, so that future events can solidly, irrefutably confirm the past-life report.
---------------------------------
I suggest that reincarnation is metaphysically-implied, but the past-life reports have explanations other than the reported past-lives
Michael Ossipoff
The anti-metaphysical stance of verificationism suggests that the most logical position on the "afterlife" is that of a soulless immortality that results by judging both "mortality" and "immortality" to be metaphysically inapplicable concepts that are empirically trivial in pertaining only to empirical matters of behaviour decided by convention:
1) Verificationism is anti-realist about time, since the meaning of "past" and "future" reduces to present empirical conditions pertaining to their assertion. Hence all observed change could be said to occur within a non-moving present that can only be said to exist 'in a manner of speaking'.
2) Verificationism is behaviourist concerning "life" and "death" since these concepts are reduced to their empirical criteria of assertion which pertain only to observed biological behaviour in observed persons and other organisms.
Hence for verificationism it would appear impossible in virtue of 1 and 2 to talk meaningfully about the life or death of a literal "first-person" owner of experience, except in the sense of a fictional person that we know of as the "first-person" or "empirical ego" which pertains only to an idea of the imagination that is derived from the publicly verified meaning of "living person" by way of analogy.
Sam, pardon the criticism, but I'm quite curious about something. How does it make sense to put explanations in terms of likelihood of being true?
I mean, in order to determine the likelihood of an event actually occurring, one must first know the number of possible outcomes and all the influencing factors of determination. What is an explanation about what happens to our mind/consciousness after death if not an explanation of a possible outcome?
We do this all the time based on testimonial evidence, this is nothing new. For example, if you have 20 people who witnessed an accident you can draw certain conclusions based on the testimony of the witnesses, that is, you can determine how likely it is that something occurred. Moreover, you can do it with the 5 criteria I used. Thus, as I argued, again based on the strength of the testimonials, I can reasonably say there is a high probability that consciousness survives bodily death.
I'm not sure I follow your point. You don't see how levels of awareness change between dream states and waking states? Moreover, there is no correspondence between NDEs and lucid dreaming in the sense that they are even close to equivalent. One knows when one is having a lucid dream, at least most of us do, and lucid dreams have a dreamlike quality that's not even close to what we experience on an everyday basis. NDEs, as I'm contending, are as reality like as you can get, in fact people claim that it's more real than real, it's hyper-real.
Of course there are different sensory modalities. There are different sensory modalities in our everyday experiences. The question is, why aren't these experiences veridical? Your claims seem to be very general. I've given you the reasons why I think they're veridical.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WXTX0IUaOg
In my view, reincarnation is natural, expected, and metaphysically-implied.
Nisargadatta said that maybe sometimes someone can remember some little bit about a past life.
I'm not saying that can be completely ruled out.
I just feel that metaphysical support is the stronger support for there being reincarnation.
Michael Ossipoff
I don't disagree with the statement that there's probably reincarnation. I just haven't seen the NDE reports that mentioned past lives.
Michael Ossipoff
I said that there's metaphysical support for reincarnation
In an earlier reply to you, I said that past lives are indeterminate, even in principle. This life doesn't need an explanation by a past life, but, among the infinitely-many life-possibility-stories, there's surely or nearly surely one that would lead to this one.
I've been posting quite a bit about the metaphysical support for reincarnation. Maybe I should summarize it here a bit, but I'll try to be brief.
I've been pointing out that there can be complex systems of inter-referring inevitable abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals,
Among the infinity of such logical systems, there's inevitably one whose events and relations match those of this physical universe. There's no reason to believe that our universe is other than that.
Yes, this universe could have some other sort of reality and existence, some objective reality or existence, but that would be superfluous, and a brute-fact. ...and the suggestion of it is an unfalsifiable proposition.
Describing this from the point of view of individual experience, because our physical information comes from our experience, I often refer to those logical systems as "life-experience possibility-stories". That's what it is, for us.
I point out that the reason why you're in a life is because there's a life-experience possibility-story about someone like you. Someone just like you. ...in fact, you.
I also point out that, whatever is the reason why this life began, then, at the end of this life, if that reason still obtains, then what would you expect?
The beginning of a life, just as happened before, for the same reason.
The testimonial evidence is overwhelmingly convincing, that, early in death, there are the experiences reported in the NDEs.
What about later?
As shutdown proceeds, you eventually won't remember your recent life. But presumably there will remain the subconscious inherited and acquired feelings and inclinations about life, including a will for life, and a future-orientation.
In Vedanta, those influences are called "Vasanas".
Those Vasanas will be consistent with those of someone at the beginning of a life. You'll no longer remember or be in your previous life, but you'll still be in a life-experience possibility-story, because, due to the Vasanas, there is a life-experience possibility-story about you. You're the protagonist in a life-experience possibility-story.
According to Eastern tradition, there are a very, very few people who are life-completed enough that there are no more needs, wants, lacks, strong inclinations, or un-discharged consequences. Such a person doesn't have the Vasanas that lead to a next life. Such a person reaches a well-deserved quiet and peaceful Timeless sleep instead.
Michael Ossipoff
We do have some evidence based on testimonials of past lives, and some of what might happen later, but not much. You say reincarnation, and that is based on Eastern religions I presume, but I don't see any evidence to support that idea, only metaphysical speculation.
I didn't say that reincarnation is certain. I said it's implied, is to be expected. I said "probably".
We can agree to disagree about what's probable.
Evidence or proof? I've told why I'd expect valid testimonial evidence to be rare or nonexistent. (...but not entirely ruled out.)
As I've said, I've read a lot of NDE reports, and I've never encountered one that spoke of past lives. That's why I said that the only support for reincarnation is metaphysical.
Michael Ossipoff
I've read and listened to many thousands of NDEs and have heard people talk about living other lives. I'm not sure of the percentage that make this claim, it's not very high. I'll try to give you a link to one of the testimonials.
Since testimony can only be given by a surviving body, not testimonial can be offered in evidence.
This is therefore an empty thread.
My question is - why post if you don't have anything of value to say? It's a philosophy forum, generally we give arguments, not opinions. I have no problem if someone wants to attack the argument, but I have little patience for people who give empty-headed opinions.
No that is generally false. Lucid Dreams can be appear to be as equally real as reality. I think you are only thinking of spontaneous, low quality lucid dreams that occur when tired in nightly sleep. In contrast, wake-induced lucid dreaming that is deliberately achieved by a fully awake subject in the daytime through deep meditation or falling asleep consciously can indeed seem hyper-real. This explains why occultists have insisted on referring to them as Out-of-Body experiences, or astral projection.
There simply isn't a convincing reason to distinguish dream states from "out of body experiences" on the basis of hallucinatory/sensory phenomena.
If you don't believe me, why not try it???
There is a correspondence between all OBEs, that is, what they experience is hyper-real. I haven't studied many of these states. However, I have done some research into DMT, which is an amazing experience. If I had the chance I'd try it myself just to have the experience.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bmHL1sbntw
David Wallace giving a contrary view.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQbjP5XjEnA
I have plenty of value to say.
One person talks bollocks, so it is my duty to call you up on that.
Near-death, is NOT death.
It's the beginning of death.
That's of interest.
Michael Ossipoff
And so have nothing to do with consciousness "surviving the body"
QED the thread is empty.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI66ZglzcO0
https://eagle.sbs.arizona.edu/sc/index.php
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApXndYEpQhs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eskWYOH-Oxs
This is an interesting video about Richard Feynman "The World From Another Point of View"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNhlNSLQAFE
Someone from the right beginning of this thread has introduced a Wikipedia article about NDEs that I am sure you have read.
"Neuroscience research suggests that an NDE is a subjective phenomenon resulting from "disturbed bodily multisensory integration" that occurs during life-threatening events." - Wikipedia
Your five points can't stand up with such a research.I don't need to argue about flaws here and there. It appears in your elaboration there is a mix-up between social science and natural science while the two are yet to merge.
For example, "Testimonial evidence" should be replaced by a scientific evidence I believe. At least because it comes from legislative meanings. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/differences-between-testimonial-documentary-real-evidence-barbour
Back to the researches that Wikipedia referenced. Under "Afterlife claims and skeptical responses", it's said many prominent researchers supported your ideas but they still need to prove such phenomena can not be obtained using "conventional means". Now this is a dead end, always to any scientific research about supernatural phenomena, let it be NDEs, UFOs, ...etc.
How can one prove an earthly phenomenon cannot be from another earthly cause? I mean you are grabbing a cat's tail and prove it's not from a cat. Anything - super or trivial - that reflects to us must be via earthly objects, name it air, light, particles and forces ... the challenge is bound to fail right from setup.
In other words, proofs should be considered as unnecessary or even silly to get involved. You don't need proofs to know that you must breath to live, despite extremists would say something like without evidence of suffocation then we'd never know if that is fatal at all.
The point here is when saying about supernatural things, you need something beyond any proofs or pure earthly - your belief and innate sense.
Further, why would one need agreements on super phenomenon? You see yours, I see mine - we rarely agree except for certain shallow, trivial aspects. This belongs to a very profound topic we can talk further if there's enough interests.
The link you provide that gives an overview of different kinds of evidence isn't a very good one. What we want to know, and what I'm concerned with is the different ways in which we arrive at knowledge (justified true belief). There are many ways to justify a belief, and testimony is one of the ways we justify believing that something is true. In fact, much of what we believe is a matter of testimony. When you sit in a class room listening to a lecture you're listening to the testimony of an expert on the subject (hopefully), or at least someone who is knowledgeable. Granted testimonial evidence is not scientific evidence, and much of the time it can be very weak, but my point at the beginning of this thread was to show what kind of testimonial evidence is strong, that is, what makes for strong testimonial evidence. Furthermore, much of what makes for strong testimonial evidence is the same as what makes a strong inductive argument. So I'm applying rules that make testimonial evidence strong to NDEs, because my concern, and the concern of others is about truth, that is, is it true that people who experience an NDE are experiencing something real. No doubt they're having a real experience, just like people who have dreams have real experiences, but the question isn't whether it's a real experience, but is it an objective reality. For example, would it follow from these experiences that consciousness survives bodily existence? My contention is that there is overwhelming evidence that these experiences give strong evidence of the survival of consciousness after the death of the body, and that we retain our individuality.
Also I'm not mixing up social science with natural science, in fact, I make a distinction between scientific knowledge and the knowledge that comes in other ways, namely, knowledge that comes from testimonial evidence. And since testimonial evidence is seen in just about every subject area it is something that isn't confined to one area of study. It is seen in virtually every area of study. In fact, it's so pervasive that to doubt much of it would collapse most of what we know.
Kindly share with me what points don't you agree with in this article?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/testimony-episprob/
I understand that you agree with the testimonials for NDEs, but you don't agree that we can know it to be the case, that is, know it as true (maybe subjectively in your case, I'm not sure).
I agree with much of the sentiment in the article you cited, but much of it doesn't apply to what I'm saying. If you have specific questions, I'll answer, but I'm not going to go through that complete article and cite everything I agree with or don't agree with. It would take too much time. It sounds like our disagreement is epistemological in nature.
People are in the mainstream of science and tend to assume that being objective is better, or at least fashionably modern. I have been quite objective being educated in the same way until this very moment that I am still but trying to get rid of it.
Being subjective doesn't mean blindly stick to your prejudices. To me it's the only way to supernatural worlds where the NDE we are about is about. I am bit surprised you support it while trying to be objective. Maybe that's the reason why you still have suspects. Let's get it straight I have not seen or felt anything supernatural - I believe you neither hence your hesitation. But for a good reason I have been connecting all what I know and heard, seen...etc and found my doubts are fading day by day.
Just a side note: I used to love Feynman's videos too, and his friend's Susskind's who is still a top figure in science. Plus Sir Penrose's. Of whom I think Penrose is the most Platonist and he has expressed doubts in a subtle way by saying we don't know much about connections between the 3 worlds: physical, maths and mind. For Susskind, even more subtle when he denied his belief in God while strongly believes this world being a reflection of some remote truth - in connection with his famous Holographic Principle works.
Once Feynman said if science needs to be like a multi-layered onion then so be it. But that also means being objective or scientific is no more than being fashionable. And fashion changes fast, what stays then? Isn't it your-self?
Actually we are very far apart in terms of how we should arrive at correct beliefs or true beliefs. It may be true that our beliefs are similar, that is, that we both believe that NDEs are real. However, where we differ, and I think this is a major difference, is in how we determine whether a statement or belief is true. So in technical jargon, we have major epistemological differences, which I pointed out, somewhat, in my last post. For example, there are subjective truths, I wouldn't deny that, but when it comes to evaluating the truth of testimonial evidence, it isn't about what someone happens to believe, it's about whether these beliefs are objectively true. Just because someone believes that something is true, that doesn't make it true. Generally speaking subjective truths depend on the subject, what they think or feel is true, that is, it's minds or mind-dependent. If truth was a matter of what you or I believe is true, then anything can be true or false depending on what the subject believes. Given this idea, it would naturally follow that truth would largely have no foothold, that is, it would be meaningless.
If we compare a subjective truth to an objective truth the contrast couldn't be more stark. For example, it's objectively true that the Earth has one moon, the truth of this statement has nothing to do with your subjective belief. Your subjective belief may or may not line up with objective reality. Subjective truths, once again, depend on the subject, for example, "I like oranges" is a subjective truth. The truth of the statement is dependent on the subject "me," it's not like the statement "The Earth has one moon," which is not dependent upon a mind or minds, but is dependent upon the nature of objective reality.
I think a point you’re missing is that there might be things that can only be known in the first person, that are true, but not necessarily ‘objective’. I mean, if you restrict the criterion for what constitutes an ‘objective fact’ to the empirical sciences, then basically you’ve fallen into some form of positivism. Conversely, there might be things that I subjectively believe that might, as you suggest, be peculiar to me and hence only subjective. But there might also be subjective experiences that relay some class of fact that is *not* amenable to a purely objective account. They are therefore ‘first person’, but not necessarily subjective in the sense of being ‘peculiar to myself’; others, in a similar condition, i.e. undergoing an NDE, might report similar experiences, which are however beyond empirical reproduction, on account of their being intrinsically ‘first person’. I think in such cases they fall outside the duality of ‘objective vs subjective’.
Consider for example the book of the neuroscientist, Proof of Heaven, by Eben Alexander. He is adamant that he underwent a profound experience of ‘the next world’ whilst clinically brain-dead. It goes without saying that the sceptics will say that this is simply a subjective fantasy or illusion. He insists not. But I don’t think there is any way of arriving at an objective assessment of his claims, as the kind of experience that he reported must necessarily be out of scope for the natural sciences.
The other point I would take issue with, is the implication that objectivity is absolute or indubitable. I certainly do agree there is a domain of facts to which objective statements can be applied - but it is something of a moveable feast, especially in our day and age, when ‘all that is solid melts into the air’, to allude to a book on postmodernism. I mean, it is indubitable to me that some matters of fact are objectively the case, but in this case the subject under discussion is, again, one which by its nature is beyond the purview of natural science.
Actually I would acknowledge that there are truths that can be known in the first person. There are plenty of experiences that we have, that can only be known in the first person. For example, there is no way that I can demonstrate objectively, whether scientifically of otherwise, that I had certain private experiences yesterday or probably at any time in the past. These can be fit within the context of what I'm saying, that is, they're not purely subjective, they have an objective component.
Also, if you've read my posts, you would have seen that my epistemology includes ways of knowing that do not fit a scientific model. For example, testimonial evidence, our knowledge through sensory experience that a piece of candy is sweet, and also linguistic knowledge.
Finally, and I'm very familiar with Dr. Alexander's book, I would contend that what people are seeing in these NDEs does constitute an objective reality, so what constitutes or makes up an objective fact is not limited to our spacial temporal reality (our universe). Any possible world, reality, or universe that has a spacial component would necessarily have an objective component, that is, mind-independent things associated with that reality. Moreover, since other people have seen similar things within the NDE framework or experience, I believe it shows an objective reality apart from ours. The logical positivists would definitely disagree with my philosophical ideas in terms of NDEs.
Few discuss limits of science and what can be alternatives.
Quoting Sam26
Your belief is always respected but when it comes to proving its objectivity, it's a dead end. The wikipedia summary put NDE to a suspension and I doubt with less formal approach one would get beyond that.
So, since the supposed "out of body floating self" can interact with it's body, it can presumably interact with whatever else (which is verifiable), yet that apparently does not happen. Spurious.
Can this "incorporeal observer" then only be affected by the world (i.e. be an effect in part), but not affect the world (i.e. be a cause in part)...? Except, not affected by gravity, though, maybe. For that matter, wouldn't any observed light be subject to transformation, which hence would be detectable? Dubious.
Somehow "seeing" without eyes, "hearing" without (inner) ears, "remembering" without a head, "fits" in exactly one body (the one required to report the experience), ...? When and how is this supposed "disembodied astral soul" installed in the body anyway? Suspicious.
Alien abduction stories at least report seeing with their eyes, and those are generally thought questionable already.
Something's amiss. A measure of healthy skepticism is warranted.
Thanks! An important qualification, and one I would be inclined to agree with.
You’re neglecting a crucial factor, even it it’s somewhat mythical. Hint: three-letter word, begins with ‘f’.
Is it 'fad'? Maybe 'fob'?... Mmm, 'Fake' has four, can't be that... 'Fraud' is far too long... 'Phoney' doesn't even begin with an 'f' really... OK, I give up, do tell.
A four letter word beginning with 'f', now you're just being rude!
From grace?
OK, again you need a ground to stand on. Sounds like usual empirical or "scientific fashion" view, right? Can be anything else? That's main stream I don't doubt. I am just wondering who out their are willing to step out of it?
An easier question while we are on philosophy: have you ever wondered who is better to your taste: Plato or his famous follower Aristotle? and why if Plato? Don't need to tell if the other case.
We have labels for experiences that are outside the norm, such as, hallucinations, dreams, illusions, out-of-body experiences (OBEs), and near death experiences (NDEs) to name a few. So the experiences are real in the sense that we all share these kinds of experiences, but what are we asking when we ask if NDEs are real? What most people seem to be asking, is, if these experiences are only occurring within our mind and not part of our shared everyday experiences, then they tend to reflect subjective (inner, single point of view) experiences, and are not necessarily part of our everyday objective reality. So when NDEs are juxtaposed with physical reality (objective reality) how do they compare? Are NDEs simply subjective experiences that lack any correspondence with an objective reality?
Part of the problem when considering NDEs, is how we describe such experiences. We tend to use vague terms like real or reality, words that have a variety of meanings depending on context among other things. There is no precise definition that will work when describing what is real or not. There are just a complex web of uses that correctly fit within a variety of linguistic statements. So if we are looking to be precise in terms of what is real or not, we are not going to find a neat fitting term that works in every context. For example, when physicists use the term real or reality, what they mean by the term reality is much different from what the man on the street means by reality. One of the problems that occurs in philosophy, and in other areas of study, is that we tend to look for some theory or definition that will precisely and absolutely describe or answer the question, when no such theory or definition is possible. All we can do is look at a range of correct uses of the terms involved.
Wittgenstein compared the definition of certain words to family resemblances, that is, there are many overlapping resemblances that fit within the descriptive universe of family members; and just as no one description will adequately describe all family members, so no one definition or theory of meaning will cover every use of certain words. The example Wittgenstein uses in the Philosophical Investigations is the word game, there is no one definition that will describe every possible use of the word game because the universe of uses is just too large to describe precisely.
Another important aspect of this discussion is how we incorporate the term real into our world view. Our world view will also shape how we use the term within the scope of how we view our world. If for example you are an atheist, agnostic, Christian, or a Muslim, your view of what is real will have metaphysical implications, either negative or positive depending on your belief system. An atheist may use the term real to refer only to what is physical; whereas a religious person's view of reality expands into an area that the atheist disputes, at least generally. Thus the discussion can get quite cumbersome based on one's world view, as is the case with any philosophical discussion.
We have been talking about what is deemed real in relation to an objective reality, but we also know that what is real does not always fit what we deem to be objective reality. For example, most people will not dispute the reality of their subjective experiences, but they are real nonetheless. However, note that subjective experiences such as pain, happiness, depression, etc., have an objective component that gives meaning to the terms. Therefore, even when discussing our subjective experiences they manifest themselves within a shared environment, and within our shared linguistic framework. Even our thoughts can be demonstrated in an objective way, that is, expressed linguistically or manifested in our actions apart from language.
There is still even more confusion involved in this discussion, and that is, even if the experience is not objectively real, it can still be described as a real experience. After all even hallucinations are real, but that does not mean they are part of what we mean by our shared objective reality. In fact, hallucinations are purely subjective, and not part of a shared reality. For the most part we do not share our hallucinations, they tend to be person relative. More importantly they are not by definition part of an objective reality. However, note again, that this does not mean they are not real experiences. So what we mean by real can be very ambiguous and confusing, especially when talking about NDEs, or any other subject for that matter.
Hallucinations should not be confused with illusions. For example, hallucinations are generally person relative, and do not fit within our shared sensory experiences; whereas illusions can be a shared sensory experience. A magician for example may perform an act where he is creating the illusion of sawing someone in half, which can be seen by more than one person. This is in contrast to what happens when people experience a hallucination.
Part of the problem with this discussion is being clear about what we mean by our terms, that is, we want to be as clear and precise as possible. But given the vagueness of the terms involved, it is difficult, if not impossible, to speak with linguistic precision in absolute terms. However, do not conclude from this lack of precision, that we cannot come to an understanding of the terms involved, or that we cannot ascertain the facts, because nothing could be further from the truth. Language is not mathematics, and we should not expect the kind of precision from language that we generally expect from mathematics.
Not necessarily. We have a glimpse of this state when we are dreaming, when there is no sense of body and time/duration abruptly changes state of feeling. This is the subject of Hamlet's soliloquy on death and living. The unconscious state that is actually shattered by an impulse to awaken, where duration and space evaporate, but where memory remains to remind of where we were, is another example.
Moreover, your opinion is more of a reflection of an attitude than having good reasons.
Your simplistic way of talking about what it means to reason opens you up to all kinds of strange beliefs.
Thomas Kuhn would call this move from first to second image, with the consequent redefining of what constitutes appropriate evidence, a paradigm shift at the level of scientific theorizing.
"Are you saying there is no valid way of determining what good testimonial evidence is?"
Yes, there is, within the context of the original presuppositions, the 'paradigm' that is given at outset. Your originating paradigm presupposes a notion of consciousness that can be separated from one of body.
Within that paradigmatic framework one can indeed search for and locate validating or invalidating evidence. One can indeed determine the truth or falsity of questions that fall within the purview of the orignating logic(logics are always relative to starting premises). Once one transcends that paradigm, however, what constitutes valid or invalid evidence, truth or falsity, becomes redefined.Just as in the two images, it is not the case that one image is the true one and the other the false one. Each organizes a corner of the world differently, and wh8ich paradigm one chooses is a matter of pragmatic utility. Which paradigm seems to organize the data more parsimoniously, comprehensively, etc?
Logic is only limited by imagination.
Quoting Sam26
This is an a debatable concept.
Quoting Sam26
Mathematicians do it all the time. Concepts are created to address new problems.
It is wise to examine dogma for cracks, because the rigidity of dogma makes it very susceptible to fracture. And, if I described your approach As quite naive, how would you be react?
I'm not sure what it would even mean to say that "...no one view of reality is valid in itself..." that is, what is a valid view of reality other than a certain consensus in terms of linguistic meaning. We say this or that about reality, and we reach a certain consensus about the meaning of reality within language. When someone starts using language to suit their own particular world view, then we end up with a subjective view that collapses knowledge.
I don't disagree with everything you're saying, that is, I do think there is a pragmatic approach to epistemology that works in certain cases, but it doesn't explain the many uses of these concepts beyond what's pragmatic. So it's more than just being useful.
Science is definitely useful. The question at hand is whether its methods and necessary biases preclude it from ever formulating a reasonable theory about life. So far their efforts in this regard and from now my perspective have been an abomination in many dimensions.
Yes, the assumption that "real" and "existent" (and even "is") mean something is the cause of much philosophical confusion.
"Real", "existent" and "is" are metaphysically undefined.
I use "Reality" (capitalized) to mean "All", or "All that is", where "is" is just as broadly defined. I don't use "real" metaphysically, because, as I said, it isn't metaphysically-defined. I avoid "exist" too, for the same reason.
Ii use "is" with the broadest, unlimited, meaning.
I take "exist" to refer only to elements of metaphysics, but I avoid using "exist".
But yes, much of philosophical discussion and debate seems to be unnecessary and pointless quibbling about what exists or is real.
Michael Ossipoff
Michael Ossipoff
...for the physical relations among physical things.
But many people, known as Science-Worshippers, want to apply science outside that valid area of applicability, and have a belief that science describes, covers, applies to, all of Reality.
The religion of Science-Worship is rivaled only by doctrinaire, dogmatic, Literalist, anthropomorphic, interpretations of Theism, as the official religion in our society.
(Not all Theism is dogmatic, doctrinaire, Literalist, or anthropomorphic.)
But many people posing as dogmatic Literalist Theists are really closet Atheist, Materialist, Science-Worshippers.
Michael Ossipoff
IF you believe that philosophy can describe , cover, and apply to all of reality, then I would suggest that so can science for the most part. Not science as it has been conceived over the past 400 years by those working within the natural sciences. Science, as it has been conceived since it stopped being considered a branch of philosophy, didnt concern itself with its origins or gounding, but simply took for granted as its starting point certain presuppositions about subject and object. The limits of modern scientific metaphysics have been brought out by figures such as Husserl and Heidegger, but a postmodern empiricism would be a self-reflective endeavor that recognizes its role as inherently valuative and thus ethical(See Francisco's Ethical Knowhow for an example of this direction). It might still be presumed to treat as implicit what is explicity brought out by philosophy, but would be self-reflective in a way that it has not been in the modern era, and I suspect the dividing line that has been assumed as clear between something like philosophy and something like science will also become more ambiguous. Not
'These are things philosophy categorically can do and science can't' , but 'these are things philosophy can investigate with greater depth and rigor than science'.
Distinguishing 'reality', 'being', and 'existence' is practically impossible in the current English philosophical lexicon, because they are usually considered synonyms. But there are fundamental differences between these words.
'Exist' is derived as follows: 'ex-' to be apart, apart from, outside (as in external, exile), and '-ist', to stand or to be. So to 'exist' is to be 'this as distinct from that', to have an identity. In my heuristic, the 'domain of existents' is basically the realm of phenomena. 'What exists' are all the billions of compound objects that are composed of parts and have a beginning and end in time. Also, existence refers to the living of life considered longitudinally through time, 'our life', and all of the forms of phenomena that exist within that frame.
What is 'real' is another matter. I understand this to denote real numbers, logical, scientific and natural laws and principles, and so on. So in this heuristic, numbers are real, because they're the same for anyone who can count, but they're not existent, because they don't come into and go out of existence. (And prime numbers, in particular, are not composed of parts - see Augustine on Intelligible Objects. Imaginary objects could also be discussed but I will leave that for now.)
The meaning of 'Being' is another matter again. Note that in ordinary speech the term 'Being' usually denotes 'human being', and for good reason. This is because in a Being, the domain of existents and the domain of reals is synthesised into the 'meaning-world' in which we live. But another crucial point about being is that being is never an object of consciousness, because we're never apart from or outside of it. Being is 'that which knows', never 'the object of knowledge' (a fundamental insight of non-dualism. But this is why it can be said that we 'forget what being is' even though it's always 'nearer' than anything else.)
The 'be' of 'be-ing' is a completely different matter to the nature of the existence of objects. This is the distinction basic to ontology.
Typically, in our extroverted and objectively-oriented culture, we accept that what is real is what is 'out there'; as Sagan said, that 'cosmos is all there is'. But Being is prior to the Cosmos, in the sense that if we were not beings, the cosmos would be nothing to us, we would simply react to stimuli, as animals do. It is our insight into principles, laws, logic, and so on, that enables the grasp of the 'logos' of things. Although now this has become very confused, because so-called 'empiricism' doesn't understand these distinctions.
Sounds like Heidegger, except that for him Being isnt 'that which knows' but that clearing which is prior to subject and object, in which knowing unfolds, but not itself a particular being.
Quoting Joshs
I don't.
Metaphysics can describe, cover and apply to the matter of what is that is discussable and describable. That isn't all of Reality.
(I realize that "metaphysics" is a broader term. But it's often used with a meaning similar to "ontology", which I take to mean "metaphysics" as I described it in the paragraph before this one. If anyone says that "ontology" is also about un-discussable, un-desribable Reality, that isn't the meaning that I take "ontology" to have. The "-ology" suffix implies knowability, describabity, disussability.).
So you're saying that science can describe, cover and apply to all that philosophy can?
Ethics and Aesthetics are parts of philosophy. Are you saying that science can describe, cover and apply to all issues, topics and questions of Ethics and Aesthetics?
Metaphysics is part of philosophy. Are you saying that science can describe, cover and apply to all that metaphysics describes, covers and applies to? Of course that would have to include Idealist metaphysicses too--all of them.
So science can describe, cover and apply to abstract if-then facts? Which branch of science would that be? Physics?
Not just by them. It's now agreed by all that, by the modern meaning of "science", science is about the relations and interactions among the things of this physical universe. In its purest form, that's physics.
Chemistry is about a subset of physics, though its techniques are necessarily somewhat different for that subset. (it's been said that quantum-computing will make more of chemistry calcuable, predictable, by the methods of physics.)
Biology is, at least in principle, derivable from chemistry.
Yes, now "science" conveniently refers only to the study and discussion of the relations and interactions among the physical things of this physical universe.
It's a lexicographic matter. Conveniently we now distinguish science from metaphysics. Anything other than the relations and interactions among the things of this physical universe can't be investigated at all by science, because that's all that science is about. (as defined now).
You can discuss how science used to be defined, and that might be of great historical interest, to those who want to pursue the study of history.
Michael Ossipoff
My point isn't that these words lack meaning, or that they're "metaphysically undefined." My point is that they're like other words that tend to be vague, and as a result they don't lend themselves to precise definitions. This doesn't mean we can't use them when speaking about metaphysics, it simply means that we must use them in the same linguistic way. For example, if someone has an NDE and sees their deceased father or mother, then I think it's appropriate to use exist or real in the same way we normally use those words. However, in order to do this, there must be some objective component associated with normal reality, which is the case with a vast majority of NDEs. If one is using the term exists to refer to something completely subjective, then that's problematic, at least in terms of trying to demonstrate that what you're seeing is like seeing anything else.
The other point I was trying to make is that the way we use words given any sensory experience, namely, the commonality of use, is how they should be used in terms of NDEs. If there are a large number of people seeing the same things, and there is some way of objectively verifying what they're seeing, then we can use the words in the same way we normally use them. It doesn't matter, at least to me, that what we're talking about is physical reality or metaphysical reality.
I should add that, of course, Materialists believe that this physical universe is all of reality. So, of course, for them, science does describe, cover, and apply to all of reality.
Michael Ossipoff
What aspects of reality do you think are not discussable and describable(ineffable?)? Are you referring to a spiritual dimension? To me what is of interest is not what supposedly exists in itself out there somewhere that we cannot see, but how our constructions of meaning change. In that sense, what is indescribable now is simply that understanding which lies in our future. To me talking about what is not now describable is like talking about what range of behaviors an organism isn't capable of now but may be in a differently evolved state.
"Are you saying that science can describe, cover and apply to all issues, topics and questions of Ethics and Aesthetics?"
Remember, I said a postmodern science would presumably treat implicitly the most primordial questions that philosophy would discuss explicitly. That means that many, but not all, aspects of aesthetic and ethical domains will be amenable to a self-reflexive postmodern science.
Keep in mind all of the categories of contemporary empirical psychological inquiry that at one time were branches of philosophy(cognition, will, memory, perception).
"Metaphysics is part of philosophy. Are you saying that science can describe, cover and apply to all that metaphysics describes, covers and applies to?"
Metaphysics used to be the crowning achievement of philosophy. Newer philosophical approaches don't believe in metaphysics any more. In fact, they don't exactly consider that it's possible to do philosophy any more in the strict sense( metaphysics as a beyond which organizes the physis, the objects of the world). By the same token, a postmodern science doesn't consider its role a strictly describing objective entities, having rejected the separation of subjext and object which guided modem science.
"It's now agreed by all that, by the modern meaning of "science", science is about the relations and interactions among the things of this physical universe. In its purest form, that's physics."
Yes, but postmodern science, which at this point only includes a subset of the cognitive science community, rejects this definition. My expectation is that, in order for what are now called the physical sciences to advance beyond a certain point, they will eventually have to reorient themselves as postmodern also by moving past this Cartesian dualism.
"So science can describe, cover and apply to abstract if-then facts?"
Let's talk about abstract if-then facts.
What is an if-then relation? I suppose the 'if' part introduces a starting fact, maybe in the form of a proposition? Is this fact then a concept?
What are we assuming about the history of this starting 'if' , this concept, in the individual's experience? Are we assuming that all concepts are mutually defined by reference to other concepts, like the word definitions in a dictionary?
If so, then can we assume that everyone has their own mental dictionary, so that my 'if' concept may mean something slightly different to me than it does to you?
Also, if the starting ' if' concept of an if-then relation presupposes a prior history or context that defines its meaning, isn't this starting 'if' already a 'then' to a prior 'if'? After all, the starting 'if' doesn't come from nowhere, it emerges out of a background of my ongoing interest, concerns, activities. It is already framed in relation to this background.
Now, when we think of all the ways that meanings can be related to each other, all the different types of causative logics(material, efficient, formal, final) ,
I wonder what are the most primordial observations we can make about an if-then statement.
For my money, more primordial than any of these logics I listed is a simple change of sense. Think of it as a gestalt shift. You know, when a cloud can look like a cat one minute and a horse the next. That's a change of sense. A gestalt shift isnt causative in any formal sense. The cloud-as-cat didnt 'cause' the cloud-as-horse. There is no necessary relation of any sort being claimed between the two.
I dont think that's the way you understand if-then. You want to lock in a formal logic causation.
As an adherent of modern scientific metaphysics, that would be not surprising.
I must quit for the evening.
Will reply tomorrow.
Michael Ossipoff
Sure, all language is a bit vague. No finite dictionary can non-circularly define any of is words. it really always must come down to "You know what i mean", or demonstration-by-gesture.
But "Exist", "Real" and even "Is" are qualitatively more un-defined than other words. Though I refer to Reality, to mean "All", and use "Is" with the broadest interpretation, I don't use "real" for comparison of metaphysical things, and I don't use "exist".
I think there's lots of unnecessary debate in philosophy about what is or isn't "real" or "existent".
Of course.
And I claim that our metaphysical world is purely subjective, in the sense that we're primary and central to our life-experience possibility-story. It's entirely about our experience. In that sense, it's completely subjective. The physical world around you is secondary, as the setting for your life-experience possibility-story.
It's there because you're in it, and you're in it because of your predisposition.
As I was saying, it's meaningless to say that NDEs aren't "real".
They're followed by one of two things:
The peaceful rest and sleep at the end of lives.
OR
A next life.
I suggest that, for nearly everyone (including everyone in these forums) it will be the latter.
Michael Ossipoff
I had errands today, and it's a long post, but I'll have my reply finished and posted tomorrow morning. (Tuesday 2/20/18).
Michael Ossipoff
Here is an interesting speculative point: Let's assume that consciousness does survive bodily existence, and that it's true that our consciousness can be inserted into different realities. Moreover, let's also assume that this reality is similar to a holographic program. If this is a program, then it may also be the case that not all who appear to be real, are real. For example, what if some of the humans are merely program generated. In other words, what if being inserted into the program is like going into a game like World of Warcraft, where you assume a character (in our case a body), but that other characters in the program are simply generated by the program (NPCs). It would seem to be a reasonable conclusion to infer based on the assumed premise.
Yes, it is never clear. All we have are our observations, some clues, and we try to put together the pieces into some image (ontology) of nature. These are not proofs, they are only clues.
Quoting Sam26
Consciousness that includes memory. Memory that is interwoven into the fabric of the universe that persists through so cycles of life so that consciousness can forever perceive it in new forms. It is not a program, but rather life in the form of memory, creative impulse, and will.
We are so far apart in our thinking. I'm not saying it's never clear, I'm saying that the assumption you made about evidence of past lives isn't clear. For me it's clear that consciousness survives bodily existence, for example, because the testimonial evidence is very strong.
.
How broad a range of things do you think that words accurately and completely describe? To me, it seems that the burden of proof is on the person who claims that words accurately and completely describe all of Reality.
.
You’re basically saying, discuss what you think is un-discussable :D
.
Anyway, in a passage at the end of your post, you answer your own question. I’ll quote it here:
.
.
That passage hints about something that isn’t discussable or describable. …that words don’t describe or apply to. So, do you really believe that words can be a complete description of Reality?
Anyway, I hear-tell that there were some of them Classical-Greek fellers who also didn’t think that everything was describable and discussable.
So, I must decline credit for inventing that idea.
.
.
If-then is about logic. There are aspects of our world that are consistent with and described by logic.
.
The if-thens in my metaphysics are about one proposition demonstrably inevitably following from another. That can be called causation. And there’s a domain of Reality that is described by logic.
.
.
I’m the one who said that metaphysics, logic, science and words don’t describe all of Reality. You’re the one who thinks that words cover and describe all.
.
But yes, while admitting that metaphysics doesn’t and can’t describe all of Reality, I nevertheless say that metaphysics needs to be approached scientifically. Metaphysics has a lot in common with science. …similar requirements. Avoid mutual-contradiction. Statements need to be supported. There are uncontroversial things can be said. Brute-facts, assumptions, and unverifiable, unfalsifiable propositions are rightly suspect.
.
I don’t claim to know much about the unknowable. :D
.
I can’t prove that something is un-discussable by not discussing it. But you can show that something is discussable by discussing it. So then, do so. Discuss something that you think some people might not consider discussable. …without asking me for the impossibility of discussion about what’s undiscussable.
.
Can anything be said about matters that are un-discussable, indescribable, ineffable? You’re asking me for information about un-discussable things.
.
Without rigorous proof either way, which of the following is the reasonable presumption?:
.
That all of Reality is discussable and describable, or that it isn’t? Or that it might or might not be? If the latter, then any statement purporting to be about all of Reality is questionable.
.
Yes, I said that if all of Reality even might not be discussable, then any statement purporting to be about all of Reality is questionable.
.
I limit my assertions to uncontroversial ones.
.
Materialists claim that the physical world is all of Reality. That’s a broad and big claim, assertion, and assumption.
.
Materialists believe in their fundamentally, objectively, concretely existent world as a brute-fact. What else can you call it?
.
.
I don’t say that, but it could be taken as referring to meta-metaphysics—undiscussable, un-describable matters.
.
That’s probably what someone means when saying that phrase.
.
.
Yes, O seer of all!
.
1. “Exists”: As I said, there’s some agreement that “exists” applies only to elements of metaphysics. …and, in fact, only to elements of metaphysics that come into and go out of existence…that exist temporally. Maybe only physical things. With those limitations, I guess it could be said that “exists” means “is” (when “is” is used at the end of a clause, without a predicate-nominative—saying something about one thing, rather than equating two things).
.
2. “..out there somewhere…”
.
Out where? So you think that if there’s anything un-discussable, then it must be distantly spatially located “somewhere out there?”
.
3.“supposedly”? It sounds if you’re supposing things that I didn’t say.
.
Anyway, what’s more unreasonably and vainly “supposed” is your belief that words can describe all of Reality.
.
4. “…that we cannot see.” Alright, are we clarifying that we’re a Materialist, who believes that the physical world comprises all of Reality?
.
I avoid the word “exist”.
.
As for what you’re interested in, of course no one can tell someone else what they should be interested in.
.
But let me quote, again, your own assertion about the limitations of logic and words:
.
.
In any case, yes I suggested that not all of Reality is discussable or describable. When I said that, I thought that it was uncontroversial and universally agreed. But I’m not interested in debating it. I prefer to confine my discussion to something that is known to be discussable: Metaphysics.
.
So I’d rather just discuss metaphysics. I’m not interested in convincing anyone about the limits of discussability.
.
You said:
.
.
So you’re saying that you’re convinced that all or Reality will eventually be known by humans? (…as soon as science become sufficiently advanced)?—Are you a Materialist? …a Science-Worshipper?
.
.
See directly above.
.
.
You just have a different definition of science. There’s nothing wrong with different definitions, as long as they’re carefully specified, and consistently-used.
.
What you mean by “science” sounds like a brand of philosophy. It would be difficult to comment on it without knowing more about it.
.
I’ve read that relativism about everything is a strong component of Post-Modernism.
.
.
So that’s the kind of a science that postmodern science is or will be?
.
I’d said:
.
.
You replied:
.
.
Metaphysics isn’t, or shouldn’t be, about believing. As I said, uncontroversial things can be said about metaphysics. If you don’t “believe in” them, then you’d be invited to tell why.
.
A person can believe in a metaphysics that they can’t defend. A person can express disbelief in a metaphysics with which they can’t find fault.
.
Obviously, people can and do believe whatever they’ve already chosen to believe.
.
.
As I said, you have a different definition of what “science” means, and it’s something that, for you, replaces philosophy, including metaphysics. But someone could ask, “But if it replaces metaphysics and philosophy, answers their questions, then isn’t it philosophy? Philosophy and an improved replacement for physical-science, all rolled into one?
.
.
Yes, but postmodern science, which at this point only includes a subset of the cognitive science community, rejects this definition. My expectation is that, in order for what are now called the physical sciences to advance beyond a certain point, they will eventually have to reorient themselves as postmodern also by moving past this Cartesian dualism.
[/quote]
.
Is that a quote from Post-Modernists?
.
Cartesian Dualism, like Dualism in general, is a metaphysics. Science (including physics) doesn’t subscribe to a metaphysics at all. Science-Worshippers want to make science into a metaphysics (Materialism) and a religion (Sciece-Worship). But, really, science has nothing to do with metaphysics, and shouldn’t be worshipped as a religion.
.
Science can’t “move past” Cartesian Dualism, because science isn’t in Cartesian Dualism. Cartesian Dualism, or any Dualism is a metaphysics. Science has nothing to do with metaphysics.
.
…though a respected university physics professor and established specialist on quantum-mechanics has said that quantum mechanics lays to rest the notion of an objectively-existent physical world. …a (uniquely?) rare instance of science saying something about metaphysics.
.
I’d said:
.
.
You replied
.
.
The “if-then” fact’s “if “ premise isn’t necessarily a fact. It’s only a hypothetical proposition. I make no claim that the premises or conclusions of the “if-then” facts that I refer to are true. If a proposition isn’t true, then it isn’t a fact. But there are abstract timeless hypothetical if-then facts that are demonstrably inevitably true. …regardless of whether or not their premises are true.
.
I’m talking about worlds of “if “, as opposed to worlds of “is”.
.
.
Yes.
.
.
“Fact”:
.
I’m not saying that the premises of the if-then facts that I refer to are true. If a premise isn’t true, then it isn’t a fact.
.
“Concept”:
.
The premise is a hypothetical proposition. I guess you could call it a “concept”, except that I like to keep what I say uncontroversial, and keep it plain. The word “concept” might imply more than I mean. I prefer to just call the premise a hypothetical proposition.
.
.
You’re asking me what you and I are assuming. How would I know what you’re assuming? Only you know what you’re assuming. Why ask me?
.
.
What “starting if”? By that, do you just mean the “if “ premise of any particular if-then fact?
.
Its history is that timelessly is, as a hypothetical proposition that’s (at least part of) the “if “ premise of an abstract timeless if-then fact.
.
But no assumption is involved, required, or used.
.
Do I assume that the timeless abstract if-then fact, or its premise(s) or its conclusion “exist” or are “real”? No.
.
No assumptions. No brute-facts.
.
.
You’re asking me what you and I are assuming. How would I know what you’re assuming? Only you know what you’re assuming. Why ask me?
.
.
No. I’m not talking about concepts. I’m talking about timeless abstract if-then facts, and their hypothetical premises and conclusions. I try to avoid using unnecessary terms that might have different meaning than I intend. I don’t use the word “concept” when describing my metaphysics.
.
But yes, a proposition, such as a hypothetical physical-quantity-value, can be (at least part of) the premise of one abstract if-then fact, and can also be the conclusion of another abstract if-then fact.
.
And no, that isn’t an assumption.
.
Dictionaries are finite. Experience is open-ended, and therefore so is the system of inter-referring timeless abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals that comprises a life-experience possibility-story. For example, of course there remains much physics yet to be discovered. Current explanations themselves call for explanations of them. And no one knows the physics that will explain the acceleration of the recession-rates of the more distant galaxies—though I don’t think anyone doubts that, at least potentially, in principle, physics will find an explanation that’s consistent with other physical observed facts.
.
In the past, there were seeming inconsistencies: Black-body radiation’s energy/wavelength curve; the result of the Michaelson-Morely experiment; the unexpected large direction-change of particles directed into a piece of metal-foil by Ernest Rutherford; The planet Mercury’s seemingly anomalous rotation of apsides; Olber’s paradox. …etc.
.
Those seeming inconsistencies were later consistently explained in terms of new physics or new theories and explanations that were well-confirmed.
.
.
Your life-experience possibility-story is yours only, though all of our stories take place in the same possibility-world. That’s really no surprise: For your story to explain or account for you, there must be a species that you belong to, and it must have other members in your world.
.
There are infinitely many life-experience possibility-stories, and so of course there’s one about every being in your world. You experience only your own experiences. The experiences, and experience-story of other beings is theirs only, just as yours is yours only.
.
Because we live in the same world, we experience many of the same facts about that world. For instance, we both know that, in the measurement-systems used by humans on this planet, there are 12 inches in a foot, and 100 centimeters in a meter.
.
.
I don’t know what you mean by “starting “if “. A person’s experience is open-ended, and therefore so is the complex system of inter-referring abstract timeless if-then facts that constitutes a story about that experience.
.
I’ll assume that, by “starting ‘if’ “, you just mean the “if “ premise of an if-then fact.
.
.
I don’t use the term “concept” in my description of my metaphysics.
.
.
It certainly can be, and (at least) often is.
.
I don’t use the word “concept” in my description of my metaphysics. I speak of hypothetical propositions, and of if-then facts.
.
Sure, a proposition can be (at least part of) the premise of one if-then fact, while also being the conclusion of another if-then fact.
.
.
Exactly.
.
.
Yes. It’s part of the complex system of inter-referring abstract timeless if-then facts about hypotheticals that is your life-experience possibility-story.
.
.
The most basic requirement for your life-experience possibility-story is that it be self-consistent, without contradictions. It’s based on if-then facts, and there’s no such thing as mutually-inconsistent facts.
.
But, as for an if-then fact itself, there’s nothing more primordial about it than itself. Such a fact, and a complex system of inter-referring abstract timeless if-then facts about hypotheticals, doesn’t need a context, or a medium in which to be…like some kind of potting-soil.
.
It’s premise needn’t be true. In fact it’s irrelevant and meaningless to even speak of the “reality” or “existence” of such a system of inter-referring abstract timeless if-then facts.
.
.
Yes. I’ve twice quoted that passage above, because it shows you agreeing that words and logic don’t cover and describe everything.
.
.
As I answered above (when quoting that same passage), I’m not the one claiming that words and logic describe all of Reality.
.
Above in this reply, I explained that metaphysics has much in common with science…has some of the same requirements that science has. …and is valid in its domain, as science is.
.
Michael Ossipoff
What I wrote you was not coming from that tradition, so all of my definitions will be alien to you, and they would not be something I could explain in a single post. So your response is not just a matter of disagreeing with my assertions, it's not having a sense of what kind of metaphysics ( or post-metaphysics) they're coming from. My terms will essentially be a foreign language to you unless you're well versed in writers like Nietzsche, Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, Deleuze, Heidegger, Derrida.
For instance, you say there are aspects of reality that language can't describe. In my chapter of philosophy , reality isnt a collection of things, and language is not a tool to describe those things. Language is a transformation.
Imagine trying to insert your ideas into a conversation that is taking place among Ancient Greek philosophers. You would be able to intepret their concepts and state your preferences among their various models, but their unfamiliarity with modern scientific metaphysics, the empiricism of Locke, the idealism of Berkeley, the subjectivism of Kant, would make it impossible for them to make sense of your approach before you taught them this new language.
Because I can understand where you're coming from, I could choose to keep my own terms within the confines of the part of Western scientific and philosophical history you're familiar with. I could choose not to introduce into the discussion this other world of philosophy that is alien to you, where logic, language, reality, objectivity and subjectivity mean something very different than what they mean to you
There is one good reason I can think of to venture beyond your familiar territory, but it depends on the purpose that your model serves for you. What would you say it is intended to clarify about the world?
For instance. If your main interest is offering a new philosophical clarification on how today's physical science(physics, chemistry) is understood, then I don't think it would be particularly useful to you to insert Derrida or phenomenology into the conversation. As far as I'm concerned, your account is perfectly respectable for that purpose and I have nothing to critique in it.
But if you are trying to use your model to get a better understanding of ethics, aesthetics, affect and emotion, the nature of psychopathologies like schizophrenia and autism, biological evolution, the development of culture, social relationships, empathy, then I would argue that you are handicapped by the metaphysical
tradition from which your concepts are derived.
I can elaborate further on this if you could say a few worlds about how your model deals with any of the areas I mentioned above. Also, what motivated you in the first place to create your model? What specifically were you dissatisfied with in the way that other philosophies address the issues above?
"Your life-experience possibility-story is yours only, though all of our stories take place in the same possibility-world. That’s really no surprise: For your story to explain or account for you, there must be a species that you belong to, and it must have other members in your world."
Just out of curiosity, do you have any familiarity with psychological constructivism? Constructivists believe that we use a construct system to interpret our world, a kind of narrative lens. I wonder if we can use this as a bridge to your account.
Quoting Joshs
Good question. I'm not sure how much is original my metaphysics is.
I got the idea from a book, a long time ago. I don't remember the author's name, or the name of his book. Nor do I remember enough detail about it to know where, how much, or if my metaphysics differs from his.
At that time, I hadn't heard about Faraday, Tippler or Tegmark.
I haven't found any details of Faraday's metaphysics.
I disagree with Tippler and Tegmark about a number of things. I once listed them in a post at these forums.
A few details tomorrow.
I don't know much about those two things, but I've heard at these forums that Wittgenstein said that there are no things, just facts. That sounds lot like a brief summary of what I've been saying.
Yes, fair enough.
Things are elements of metaphysics. I don't claim that metaphysics or its things are all of Reality.
Yes, I regard language as a way of describing things, events, and relations. But if it's worded as a transformation, then i still don't claim that words apply to all of Reality
Yes, but I've heard here, and read elsewhere that Aristotle said that Good is the basis of what is, and that's my impression as well. I regard that as meta-metaphyscs, not metaphysics, and not a matter of debate, proof or argument.
i regard and treat metaphysics like science. ...in the spirit of science. ...as explanation for metaphysical and physical reality, and as a description of what metaphysicsally (describably and discussably) is.
However yes, I also feel that my metaphysics has implications on subjective matters, suggesting the meta-metaphysical impression about Good being the basis of what is. More about that tomorrow.
The Hindus discuss those applications of philosophy, and I've found their writings helpful and worthwhile. More tomorrow.
Explanations interest me. I regard metaphysics in the spirit of science, with similar requirements, and even with applications and implications. ...just as physics has those.
Reading about Vedanta, reading that book that I mentioned, and the question about why there's something instead of nothing.
Materialism is to be rejected because of its big brute-fact.
I'll look up phenomenology and constructivism. I've read just a bit about phenomenology, and it had something to do with science of mind. I didn't disagree with its relevance as a topic. The dictionary confirms that it can be about science of mind.
My science-of-mind position is that we're animals, and animals are purposefully-responsive devices, in principle like a mousetrap. ...but more complex, and with a natural-selection origin. I don't subscribe to Mind or Consciousness separate from body, Animals are unitary.
My metaphysics is from the subjective point of view. That relates to the dictionary's other definition of phenomenology, relating to awareness and its objects.
I'd better get back to my cooking.
More tomorrow.
http://www.oikos.org/mairstory.htm
Also, check out Vaihinger's 'As If' philosophy, which influenced the constructivist George Kelly.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Vaihinger
Words don't accurately and completely describe any reality. People who have had NDEs are able to describe their experiences, and that which they are unable to describe, is just a matter of expanding our language to include new descriptions or explanations. Moreover, if you can experience something, then it can be described in some way.
What is it exactly that you're claiming we can't describe? I can't make any sense out of a reality that can't be described. Are there objects in this reality, is there light and darkness, is there space, are there beings? There maybe aspects of reality that we know nothing about, but that's different from saying we can't describe some reality. And if it comes down to being able to accurately and completely describe some reality your not saying anything new or significant.
Well, let me quote you:
Quoting Sam26
But now you say:
Quoting Sam26
You mean the one about whose complete and accurate describability with words you're contradicting yourself? :D
Which is it?
Quoting Sam26
Did I say there isn't any reality that we can describe? I've been saying that there's a domain of what is (apart from the physical sciences), that can be discussed and described, and it's what I mean by metaphysics.
Quoting Sam26
Did i say that it was an original statement? :D
Actually, many agree with me about that.
As I've already clarified more than once, I'm not interested in debating whether or not all of Reality is describable and discussable.
If you think it is, then fine. Let's just agree to disagree on that.
Michael Ossipoff
I was up all night with the matter of the choice of a map-projection. When I was younger, I used to stay up all night whenever I was reading something interesting, or pursuing an interesting math-problem. I thought that I knew better now. Anyway, I was up till 8 a.m., and that’s why I’m a bit late in getting on the computer.
.
Additional comments in more detail:
.
You wrote:
.
.
Litewave has suggested something similar to what I propose. He posted it before I did. His proposal probably isn’t identical to mine.
.
The first Westerner I’ve heard of, who beat me to it with Elminative Ontic Structural Idealism was Michael Faraday, in 1844. But I couldn’t find details of his metaphysics.
.
As I was mentioning last night, I got the idea of possibility-worlds (and that term “possibility-world”) a long time ago, from a book whose author and title I don’t remember. But he spoke of possibility-worlds. It seems to me that if he’d spoken of, let alone emphasized, individual subjective life-experience possibility-stories, I’d have remembered that.
.
Also, although if-then facts might be implicit in possibility-worlds, I don’t remember him emphasizing if-then facts. I don’t remember mention of logic in the book.
.
So, so far as I know, my metaphysics is original in some regards.
.
Also, another difference from other Eliminative Ontic Structural Idealism proposals is that I claim and emphasize that it’s completely uncontroversial.
.
For example, Tegmark calls MUH a hypothesis.
.
Tegmark has said that his proposal explains Reality. I certainly don’t make that claim. I think that’s too much to ask of metaphysics.
.
Tegmark emphasizes the objective, universe-wide point-of-view for MUH. In fact, he states the External Reality Hypothesis as a starting principle.
.
Tippler believes in, and emphasizes, the Simulated-Universe Theory, and has spoken of a future time when the entire physical universe will be converted to one big computer, to simulate everyone’s lives.
.
Some computer-scientist authors have made that suggestion too.
.
I don’t think the Simulated-Universe-Theory makes any sense, because possibility-stories are timeless, and aren’t “created” by the writing of a program or the running of a computer. They could only displayed for the computer’s viewing-audience.
.
Tegmark has expressed support for the Simulated-Universe Theory.
.
Those considerations seem to suggest that my proposal might have originality.
.
But the main difference between my proposal, and the other Eliminative Ontic Structuralisms that I’ve heard of is that mine is from the individual subjective point of view.
.
.
That’s entirely possible. I can’t say for sure that there isn’t already a proposal that’s just like mine.
.
If anyone has heard or read my metaphysical proposal before, from someone else, I hope you’ll mention it.
.
The mention that there’s a hypothetical experience-possibility-story, consisting of a system of inter-referring timeless abstract if-then facts, whose events and relations are those of our experience in our apparently objectively-existent world--a world that we describe in declarative indicative grammar—and that there’s no reason to believe that our experience is other than that, is a lot to ask someone to accept. But I claim there’s no objection to it, and that there aren’t really any controversial statements in that proposal.
.
My suggestion is that our world is better described by conditional grammar, rather than our useful and convenient declarative, indicative grammar.
.
They say that schizophrenia and autism are physically-caused. Hereditary, or physically-environmental. There are physical-environmental theories of autism’s cause, to explain the drastic increase in the incidence of autism in recent times.
.
But, aside from that, obviously people can mess-up eachother’s lives, without any hereditary or physical-environmental help, especially when socially-caused damage to someone’s life starts in early life. The familial and societal environment in which someone is raised can surely make all the difference.
.
.
It seems to me that metaphysics has implications.
.
I suggest that the metaphysics that I propose is about a metaphysical reality that is insubstantial and ethereal, and implies an openness, looseness, and lightness. …in contrast to Materialism’s grim (and insupportable) “objective” accounting.
.
I don’t mean to say that you always live in logic, facts, verbal description, etc. But, when you visit them, they aren’t as bad as you’ve been taught. In fact they’re pretty good.
.
Metaphysics is a verbal discussion about what logically, factually is. What factually is, is pretty good.
.
So it’s my impression, and that of some other people, that what-is, is pretty good, and inspires gratitude.
.
An impression that the whole overall metaphysical what-is, is very good—Is that different from an impression that Good is the character or basis of what-is?
.
These are impressions, or the same impression. But if your subjective impression is that something is good, then isn’t there a real sense in which it is good, as far as you’re concerned? So the distinction between impression and belief isn’t really so distinct.
.
…because none of this has anything to do with convincing anyone else.
.
And, if there’s an impression that Good is the basis of what-is, then isn’t that really just another way of saying an impression that there’s good intent behind what-is?
.
.
As I mentioned, the question of why there’s something instead of nothing leads to such a metaphysics.
.
I wanted a metaphysics that doesn’t have any brute-fact, and which doesn’t need or make any assumptions.
.
And I’ve tried to avoid saying anything controversial, anything that anyone would disagree with.
.
I wanted to send this as soon as possible, having said that I’d reply in the morning today.
.
Thanks for the references. I’ll check them out now.
.
Michael Ossipoff
Let me also remind you of what the thread is about, viz., NDEs, and whether they support the inference that consciousness survives bodily existence. If you people want to talk about whether your opinions support some theory of metaphysics, start up another thread. Thank you. :nerd:
That isn't a statement. It's a question. It's meaningless to speak of "contradicting" a question.
In any case, light, darkness, space and beings are, not only elements of metaphysics, but they're also things of a physical universe. I've repeatedly emphasized that metaphysics and the physical world are discussable and describable. For example a physical universe, and its things that you listed, are discussable and describable by physics.
You also asked about "objects". Not all objects are physical, but they're all metaphysical, and therefore discussable and describable.
So much for that question.
In any case, I also clarified that I'm not interested in debating whether or not all of Reality can be accurately and completely described. If you think so, then that's your business. I repeat that it's time to just agree to disagree.
Quoting Sam26
Nowhere
I make no claim that your statement (that I contradicted a question, or that your question is a statement), accurately or completely described anything. :D
Quoting Sam26
You'd need to be a little more specific about what that's relevant to. Regardless of that lack of specificity, most of what you listed are elements of a physical world. And objects can be physical parts of a physical world, or metaphysical "objects", such as the often-discussed "abstract objects". In either case, they're physical &/or metaphysical, and therefore discussable and describable.
Quoting Sam26
Who knows what statement and what contention you're referring to.
Is the "statement" you're referring to, the question that you call a "statement"?
In trying to reply to you, it's difficult to know what you mean. Before you post, you need to be sure that you know what you mean. That would help.
Otherwise, you're wasting people's time.
Quoting Sam26
Nonsense. The topic, when I replied to it, was far from NDEs. The survival of consciousness is a metaphysical topic, and the discussion had moved away from NDEs.
I don't doubt that NDEs are real (whatever that means), valid and true. And they seem tell of an impression of something good after life.
But it should be emphasized that NDEs occur early in death, and therefore don't give any evidence about the specifics of what happens later--reincarnation or sleep.
But I suggest that your question is a pointless one: As I've been saying, consciousness survives, in the sense that no one ever experiences a time when they don't experience.
Though your survivors will say that you're dead, and completely shut-down, you'll never experience that time.
...whether what follows the NDE is sleep, or reincarnation.
As for the accounts of people repeating conversations that took place when they were supposedly dead, it has been observed that people who are apparently dead can hear, and later remember what they heard, much better than anyone would have expected. So, no need for a supernatural explanation for that.
As for people observing things (like a shoe on the roof) that the couldn't have known, there are various explanations that don't require out-of-body-ness:
Maybe the person had previously seen that, from another building, etc.
Maybe someone else had mentioned it to them, either before or after the near-death.
In either of those instances, their account of perceiving it could be genuine, or could have been unintentionally later subconsciously embellished from the information received.
Or, on the other hand, it could be a hoax, on the part of the patient, or a family-member, or someone else who wanted a better NDE story.
The trouble with some of you guys is that you refuse to consider the possibility of hoax or honest subconscious embellishment.
"How do you explain that?!!" Well, the original reporting person, or the author of the book, made it up.
That goes for UFO stories, ghost accounts, alleged memories of past lives, etc.
(Though there probably is reincarnation, there's no reason to believe that people could remember a past life. In fact, I claim that past-lives are indeterminate, not just unknowable.)
Michael Ossipoff
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
So if it's meaningless to speak of a contradiction when a question is involved, then why did you say I was contradicting myself? I thought you saw what I saw, namely, that the question was rhetorical, used to make a specific point. The point being that in any reality there are going to be quantifiable things (objects, light and darkness, space, beings, etc.) otherwise what are you talking about? No need to show me your logic acumen, but technically you're correct.
You're the one who said...
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
So if I say "Words don't accurately and completely describe any reality," and "Any reality is going to have something in it (e.g., my rhetorical question) for us to describe," are these statements contradictory? From my point of view they are not, nothing in these statements "accurately and completely" describes anything.
You're saying that words don't accurately and completely describe all of reality, and on this point we're in agreement. I probably misunderstood parts of your statements.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
That's fine, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to address the idea. There're others reading these post who might be interested in the ideas and where they lead.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
I wouldn't want to waste your time. Yes, that could have been written better. Sometimes I'll quickly respond to something without editing, and it will be as clear as mud. It happens from time-to-time, but generally I do fair job, I think.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
I find that you tend to be a bit snide in some of your remarks. Yes, the topic has drifted away from the original discussion, but my point stands.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
What does it mean for an NDE to be real? That must be a difficult concept for you to apprehend. Real in the sense that any of our sensory perceptions are real. In other words, they're not hallucinations, illusions, dreams, imaginings, etc.
Actually many NDEs do tell us that some things about living out other lives, not the specifics obviously, but enough to draw the conclusion that there probably something to the idea.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
No one made the claim that these people were dead, the claim is that they're near death, hence the term near death experience. A doctor may make the claim that the person was dead, that is, that there was no heart beat or no brain activity, but there is an obvious difference between that and permanent death.
The point about people hearing and remembering things when in this state, is that many of them have no brain activity. And even if there is some remnant of brain activity, how is that their experiences are much more vivid than what we experience with normal brain activity? One would think that their experiences would be less vivid with minimal brain activity. Yes, it has been reported that people "hear and later remember what they heard...," many of these come from NDEs.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Of course any one (or some) NDE can be explained away with other explanations, that's why it's important to look at a wide variety of reports from a variety of sources and cultures. And to compare these reports with UFO accounts, ghost stories, and past lives, etc., is to show complete ignorance of the facts as presented in my original argument. These testimonial statements are just as strong as any testimonial evidence.
It's not that difficult to rule out the possible explanations you've presented. It's been done many times. Moreover, to not consider those possible explanations would be an error of someone who examined the testimonial evidence in a very cursory way.
I find your remarks to be not well thought through. Your rebuttals are more like those of a freshman. At least I put forth an inductive argument. You may not agree with it, but you make it sound like your possible answers explain these NDEs away, but they're just the kind of responses that someone would make who never studied NDEs, and who never closely studied the testimonial evidence.
By the way, I didn't say that words don't accurately and completely describe any reality.
I said that words don't accurately and completely describe all of Reality.
Not quite the same thing :D
Michael Ossipoff
I think that the matter of discussability and describabiliy has been resolved.
.
I’d said:
.
.
.
“Real” isn’t metaphysically-defined. I have no idea what people at a philosophy forum mean by it. I try to avoid that word. Or, when I mention it, I emphasize that I don’t know what it would mean—as I did in the passage that you quoted.
.
And, in that passage, I agreed that NDEs are valid and true, and that their implications are meaningful.
.
.
Yes, I don’t think there’s reason to believe that they’re any of those things.
.
.
I haven’t heard of those. I’ve read a few books on NDEs, and haven’t heard of ones that suggested knowledge about past lives. So probably not a high percentage of NDEs report that.
.
I haven’t claimed that it can be ruled out that there could be some such memory. Nisargatta suggested that too, though he didn’t claim that it would be frequent or detailed. Conceivably the NDE condition could bring it out.
.
But, though reincarnation is metaphysically-implied, it’s reincarnation without knowledge of past lives (…though , in agreement with Nisargatta, I don’t claim that it entirely rules out the possibility of rare and un-detailed memory, maybe brought-out only in NDEs).
.
If someone remembers overheard conversations at a time when no brain-activity was measured for them, then the measurement wasn’t accurate enough.
.
I can’t explain why or how such a memory could be unusually vivid, but that vividness doesn’t prove an out-of-body origin.
.
I shouldn’t use the word “supernatural”, because that term is so favoritely used by Materialists and Atheists, neither of which I am. What I meant was that there seems to be a principle-of-equivalence, that whatever happens in our physical world is consistent with the usual physical laws, and that that doesn’t contradict Idealist metaphysics or reincarnation, or such nonphysical matters.
.
For instance, my metaphysics doesn’t contradict the accepted physical laws. Reincarnation needn’t contradict those laws either. Physical laws don’t apply to those matters. NDEs don’t contradict known physical law either. They’re consistent with that principle-of-equivalence.
.
But physical laws do apply to the information that a person can report about a shoe on the roof. For someone to report a shoe on the roof, without any of the usual physical means of knowing about it—that contradicts known physical science. That’s in a whole different category from Subjective Idealist metaphysics, reincarnation, and NDEs, all of which I consider valid.
.
When something is claimed that outright contradicts physical law, then we should be skeptical of such reports. Prosaic explanations like hoax, unintentional embellishment, coaching by interviewers, unconscious sharing of information by others…etc. There are lots of such prosaic explanations, and, they should be considered as alternatives to accepting, at face value, reports that contradict known physical law.
.
.
I don’ t doubt the validity of NDEs/.
.
.
I don’t compare NDEs with those things. Those things (maybe with the qualified partial exception of some past-life reports) are examples of reports that have prosaic explanations, making them not compelling.
.
I can’t say for sure that, maybe, it isn’t impossible that rarely, something about a past life could truly be reported.
.
But, by my metaphysics, and that principle-of-equivalence, the report would have to also have a prosaic explanation, even if there’s something true about it too. But, if past-lives are completely indeterminate, as I claim, then the meaning of saying that such a report is “true” isn’t quite the same. Maybe true in the sense of being not inconsistent with the person’s current life and its beginning.
.
Ghosts? I don’t know. The only report s that I pretty-much rule out are the reports of ghost visible to someone who didn’t know the deceased, or when that observer is fully awake, or which can be recorded by cameras or other physical measuring equipment.
.
If the observer knew, was close to, the deceased, and wasn’t fully awake, I don’t say that “explains away” the ghost report. It merely means that the report meets that principle-of-equivalence, which says that anything that results in something physical, like a report, should be consistent with the known workings of the physical world (or else you’re claiming some new physical science not yet discovered).
.
UFOs? It’s a bit of a reach to say that someone would come (or send robotic vehicles) here, across interstellar distances, only to observe, and scare a few people in remote locations. And, if they only wanted to be observe, does anyone think that, with their advanced technology, they couldn’ observe unobserved by us? That would give “candid-camera” observations that would surely be more informative…if they didn’t give us any reasons to believe they were here.
.
So there’s a motivational argument against extraterrestrial UFOs.
.
Definitely the burden is on the person advocating them.
.
A person could hold up a UFO book, with an account that defies explanation, and say, “How do you explain this?” . The answer, of course, is that the author made it up.
.
I read that that turned out to be the case with Von Daniken. He reported things that pretty much couldn’t be explained without extraterrestrial visitors. …but was later found to have just made it up.
.
Have you heard of Dr. Rhine’s ESP experiments at Duke University? Very convincing, until we hear about his cherry-picking methodology. Again, the convincingness resulted from faulty reporting.
.
.
The reports of overheard conversations sound plausible to me, and don’t necessarily contradict physical law.
.
The report about the shoe on the roof, without any known physical way the person could know about it—that contradicts known physical law, and the prosaic alternatives seem, to me, more likely.
.
.
If we’re talking about the alleged contravention of physical law, then that’s the issue-of-contention: Yes, an author can claim that all physical-consistent explanations have been ruled out. People lie. People sometimes believe what they want to—wishful thinking. People sometimes are unconsciously, unintentionally, unduly careless or permissive, about reports that they want to believe. That includes people who write books. It could sometimes include academic researchers. Remember Professor Rhine at Duke University.
.
.
Whoa! I never said anything about explaining NDEs away. I consider them valid. And their implications are meaningful.
.
I was only “explaining away” reports of alleged contravention of physical laws and physical facts that have a long and consistent record of holding.
.
.
I’ve read books of NDE reports, and I consider NDS to be valid, and their information meaningful and useful.
I recommend Proof of Heaven, written by a surgeon, about a NDE that went much farther into death than most other NDEs.
.
Michael Ossipoff
Sorry I don't always get back to every response. On some of these ideas we're in agreement, or at least close, but in other areas we seem far apart, but I guess that's natural. One area of disagreement has to do with the use of the word real as it pertains to metaphysical questions. The word real isn't always as clear cut as we would like it to be, but that doesn't mean we can't use the word in reference to metaphysics, i.e., simply because it has no clear cut meaning. The word real is vague by it's very nature, even when used in reference to the physical universe. However, it does get even more problematic when discussing metaphysics, but that doesn't mean we can't know what people mean by real in terms of the metaphysical. You seem to want to limit its use because it's vague, but many words are like this, and yet we understand their use. For example, we often ask, "Is God real?" without any precise definition that applies, and yet we seem to understand the implications of the question.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
I've divided NDEs into three categories - category 1 is just a very basic NDE where someone might experience an OBE and observe things taking place around them while their body is unconscious. Category 2 has more information, i.e., they may see deceased relatives, go through a tunnel, experience a life review, etc. And then there are category 3 NDEs, which give us even more information about the experience. An example of a category 3 NDE would be Dr. Eben Alexander's NDE, which gives more detailed information about the experience, but there are many category 3 NDEs that give more information than is generally known. Many of my conclusions about past lives has come from what people have said about their category 3 experience, and yes, this category isn't as pervasive as category 1 and 2 NDEs, but there are still many thousands of them. So there is plenty of evidence, but not enough to be dogmatic about it. All I can say is that it seems to be the case that based on these testimonials that certain conclusions follow. Moreover, there is also testimonial evidence of past lives from people who have experienced DMT, and these experiences are closely related to NDEs, i.e., they have some of the same experiences and more.
Furthermore, if something is, it must have properties. Words can be made to refer to these properties.
Q.E.D.
1) Reality is created by consciousness, and will therefore always exist. The form is not likely to change. Either reality will adapt so that consciousness continues to exist, or at the end of a life, consciousness enters a period of sleep before awakening to a new reality.
2) We live in a simulated reality, and are tuned in to our bodies by our creators. In this case, either the simulation ends with our body's death, or we are reassigned to a new body, with no retention of our previous assignment.
I’d said:
You wrote:
Always take your time, and just reply when you have time. I’ve been at a few other forums this week, forums about sundials, calendars, and map-projections.
People here don’t always word things that same way, but I feel that much, most, or all of the disagreements here are about how things are said. Someone else here expressed that too. That relates to my claim that my metaphysics is uncontroversial, and that, when describing it, I’m not saying anything that anyone would disagree with.
More about that later, as it relates to what you say below:
I believe that a huge amount of unnecessary apparent disagreement is caused by different people’s different meanings for “real” and “existent”.
“Real” and “exist” get philosophical discussion all fnurled-up.
As I mentioned above, I claim that there’s nothing about my metaphysics that you disagree with.
When I say that, people object:
“It isn’t uncontroversial. I disagree with your claim that your abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals, and your system of inter-referring abstract if-then facts, are real and existent, and that they can be the basis of a real and existent world like the one we live in.”
My answer:
Who said anything about “real” or “existent”?
How sure are you of that?
Atheists and Materialists and Science-Worshippers talking about God don’t have a clue what they’re talking about, or what they mean by “real” or “exist”.
I recommend: Never waste any time arguing or talking with Atheists (about their Atheism, or about Theism).
I’ll discuss with Materialists and Science-Worshippers, when they claim to have an argument against my metaphysics. But I no longer engage them otherwise.
I’d said:
You replied:
We don’t disagree on anything there.
As I’ve said, I believe that past-lives are indeterminate, not just un-knowable.
I believe that there’s reincarnation.
Whatever the reason why we’re in this life (…and I’ve discussed that.), then, if that reason still obtains at the end of this life, then what’s the obvious implication?
Though past-lives are indeterminate, there still might be a hypothetical life-experience possibility-story whose end is consistent with the beginning of this life. “Real”? Not a meaningful question. Maybe in an NDE there’s sometimes insight about that. I don’t deny that possiblility.
We don’t disagree about any of this.
Michael Ossipoff
On the whole, I'm satisfied with my answer to your post. But there are two statements to which I could have replied better, I don't mean for this post to replace or negate my previous reply, most of which I like.
So I'll just re-answer two statements in your post:
Quoting Sam26
I claim that metaphysics is a precise and scientific subject, and that there's no need to use words with vague or unknown meaning.
You said that in ordinary conversation we use vague words and understand their use. Sure, but in mathematics and metaphysics, we want to say things unambiguously.
But yes, there's always the problem that no finite dictionary can non-circularly define any of its words. But it's still possible to have less vague meanings in metaphysics than in ordinary everyday conversation.
My previous reply to this had an argumentative, critical tone. I was tired that day, and I answered according to my first impression of that quoted question. In forums that I've been to, when someone asks if God is real, the questioner is never a sincere questioner. He's always a committed Atheist who's looking for an opportunity to name-call someone, and show how much more "scientific" he is.
Also, I want to apologize for lumping all Atheists together with Science-Worshippers. Though most Atheists are also Science-Worshippers, of course at a philosophy forum there are some who aren't.
So let my address your statement about that question in a more objective and civil manner:
I emphatically disagree with the statement:
We most certainly do not.
For one thing, I don't regard God as an element of metaphysics, and so, as i regard the matter, that question isn't a good example for discussing metaphysical word-usage.
I regard religion as meta-metaphysical, not metaphysical. So I feel that all the philosophical attempt to discuss religion is twaddle.
If someone is an Atheist, then religion isn't their cup-of-tea. Fine, but then why try to discuss it, in your framework of metaphysics, or (silliest of all) your physical sciences world-view.
As I've said, "real" and "exist" aren't metaphysically-defined, and I don't use them, to try to distinguish real things from not-real things, in metaphysical discussion.
But, though "real" isn't a meaningful distinction in metaphysics, I use "Reality" to refer to all that is.
In agreement with a website I looked at, I take "Reality" and "Is" to have broad meaning.
That website (unlike me) didn't criticize the use of "exist" in metaphysics. It said that "exist" doesn't apply outside of metaphysics. I agree with that part. The website said that "exist" isn't applicable to God, and I agree. People who think "exist" means something in metaphysics can debate whether such things as a boulder, a kangaroo, a human, or the number 5 "exist".
The question you quoted "Is God real?". is very unclear in its meaning.
We don't know what the questioner means by "God" or "real".
We don't know what he expects the answerer to mean in his answer.
There are Science-Worshippers who define "God" as this physical universe, and believe that this physical universe is objectively "real".
What God is the questioner asking about? The God that Biblical Literalists believe in, and that Atheists so devoutly, loudly and fervently believe in disbelieving in?
You know, that isn't the only meaning meant when religious people refer to God.
Here's a perhaps better way of wording the question:
"If some people with whom you agree regarding this matter speak of God, then, according to how they mean God, then in your opinion, is there God?"
Though this isn't the topic here, and though you didn't ask, I answer "Yes" to that question.
I've explained that statement at slightly greater length at other topic-threads, though it isn't a topic that gives much verbal scope.
But I myself don't usually use the word God unless I'm replying to someone who has used it. ...largely because that would encourage people to hear it as Biblical Literalism.
As I've said elsewhere, I don't regard religious matters to be subjects of assertion, debate, proof, or argument.
Debate, proof and argument are relevant to metaphysics, but not to meta-metaphysics. By "meta-metaphysics", I refer to matters of what is, that aren't covered by metaphysics, or subject to discussion, or description. assertion, proof or debate. (...which of course automatically implies the first statement in this paragraph)
Michael Ossipoff
Your posts are so long it's difficult to reply to everything. I don't necessarily believe it's a bad thing, because some of my posts are long too. The problem though, as I read through your post, is that just when I think we have a point of agreement, I see that we are very far apart on some of these issues. The only way I see to even begin to clarify some of our disagreements is to take it one step at a time.
First, as you know I spend a lot of time discussing and studying Wittgenstein, so my view of language comes from him, mostly. Therefore, some of my disagreements with you have to do with the way you're using certain words/concepts. For example, we are far apart on the idea that metaphysics is a precise and scientific subject, i.e., I look at it as having some precision, but also having areas of blurred boundaries. And even the word precise falls into the category of being blurred, depending on context/use. For example, I can say, "Stand precisely here," without having an exact spot in mind, i.e., if you come over and stand roughly where I was pointing, that will do. I'm not going to say, "No, your not standing exactly where I pointed," as you get down and point to a piece of gravel. Now of course sometimes we do have an exact spot in mind, but the point is that much of language is very vague, and yet we use these concepts in ways we understand, we do it all the time.
Second, let's consider the statement "God exists." My contention is that we can refer to such a being without having a very precise definition, and still have an idea of what we're talking about, at least generally. To explain this further let's use this example: For the sake of argument let's suppose that we were having an argument about whether Augustus Caesar existed, do we need a precise definition of who we're talking about in order to have a sensible discussion/argument? What kind of definition could one give that someone else couldn't say, that's not very precise? Someone might ask you, "Who or what is Caesar," i.e., give me a definition? Whatever definition you give, surely it isn't going to explain Caesar's exact nature or character, but it's probably going to be close enough for us to have a sensible conversation. My point would be that this is true of the concept God, and it's true of many other concepts we use. Vagueness is built into many of our concepts, and philosophers who think that they can come up with exact definitions to explain things are shooting at the moon. This is part of what Wittgenstein was arguing against in much of his work, and I think it's an important point of understanding. This isn't to say that we shouldn't be precise as possible, but that precision isn't always possible or even warranted.
My disagreement is mainly with the idea that metaphysics is a precise subject, not necessarily with the idea that it's can be scientific.
Of course everyday conversation is particularly imprecise. That that doesn’t mean that metaphysics must be.
Of course I don’t say that all metaphysicses are precisely stated. But I claim that my presentation of my metaphysics doesn’t have ambiguity. (…other than the fact that no dictionary can non-circularly define any of its words.)
Or, if there’s some part of my description of my metaphysics that’s ambiguous, then that ambiguity, is just a wording-error that could be fixed.
I speak of abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals (hypothetical things). I speak of inter-referring systems of such abstract if-then facts.
I avoid words that I can’t define, such as “exists” and “real”, and make no claims about such matters in metaphysics.
I point out that, inevitably, there’s one such system of inter-referring abstract if-then facts, whose events and relations are those of your experience.
I say that there’s no reason to believe that your experience is other than the life-experience possibility-story consisting of such a system.
We’re used to declarative, indicative grammar, because of its convenience. But I suggest that conditional grammar is what more fundamentally describes our world and experience.
I emphasized that I don’t claim that the elements of some other metaphysics (like Materialism’s concrete, fundamental universe and its things) couldn’t “be”, as a superfluous, unverifiable, unfalsifiable brute-fact, duplicating, and having the same events and relations as, the system of inter-referring abstract if-then facts that I describe.
I can specify Augustus Caesar by saying, “The Roman emperor who was called ‘Augustus Caesar’.
That unambiguously states whom I’m referring to.
No way!
Augustus Caesar was a human. In fact, we can specify exactly which human he was.
In contradistinction, there are dramatically different conceptions about God, dramatically different meanings.
As I mentioned, some Science-Worshippers define God as the physical universe.
A Biblical Literalist will tell you his anthropomorphic, allegorical conception.
(I’m not criticizing people who believe the allegory. How wrong are they? If they don’t have it exactly right, and haven’t heard the discussion distinguishing a concrete assertion as distinct from a meta-metaphysical impression, they still have that impression. I say that they’re right about the central matter, though they don’t know that it’s the central matter, and think that the matter is primarily about concrete anthropomorphic assertions.)
That’s very different from being able to specify exactly what species Augustus Caesar belonged to, and exactly which member of that species he was.
And it’s not just a matter of “what”. It’s a matter of what it even “exists” means, or “real” means. We take those things to mean physically real and existent, or some quasi-physical kind of “existence” and “real-ness”, which would widely miss the mark, when it’s a matter of an impression beyond assertion, discussion or description.
Words can’t describe Reality. Does anyone at this forum think they can? …that they can be a perfect match, or even a good match, to Reality?
We’re physical beings in our physical world and our metaphysical world. Many of us know that there’s something very good about what is. Like the insect that you rescue from the kitchen sink, we might know, vaguely know, that there’s good intent behind what is.
Sure, it’s an impression. But is there really a difference between what-is seeming really good, and being really good? So the distinction between an impression and a belief (or even a fact) isn’t really so distinct.
.
I got on that subject to show how vastly, incomparably, different the various conceptions and notions of God can be.
So, if someone says, “Is God real”, we don’t know what he means, and he doesn’t know how to rightly interpret what his answerer means.
That’s why I suggested an alternative wording for the question.
But, if that question is taken to mean the wording that I suggested, then, as I said, I’d answer “Yes”. I broadly define Reality as all that is, though I don’t regard “real” or “existent” as a meaningful distinction among elements of metaphysics.
Michael Ossipoff
I haven't been through all comments on this long thread so I hope there's not much doubling up.
Ultimately Sam, no matter which way you look at this issue the answer always must be "maybe". While there is much fascinating anecdotal evidence for an afterlife, it's still only anecdotal.
Further, we know of no mechanism with which the information that makes you "you" can be preserved outside of a brain (or perhaps one day a quantum computer). Maybe the mechanism exists and we haven't yet discovered it? Again, maybe.
Also, given the extraordinary changes that occur in us between womb and grave, it's rather difficult to see continuity. Wipe our memories and we effectively become someone else. Where did the original "you" - who is now effectively dead or dormant - go? Where is it during deep sleep?
Why might we be more "awake" when dead than in deep sleep? Maybe if the brain is more filter than generator, then a broken filter would produce either a distorted or unadulterated consciousness.
All speculative, of course. More "maybes" :)
The word anecdotal carries with it the idea of not being reliable, i.e., a story that may or may not be true. However, can we use the word anecdotal when describing millions of stories of the same experience? The answer would depend, but depend on what? It depends on whether the story is consistent, whether the stories come from a variety of sources (different cultures, age groups, different religions, different world views, occurring under a variety of circumstances, whether the stories can be backed up with primary sources, i.e., people who also were there, etc), this would put a higher premium on the stories. Under these circumstance on could say that we have good testimonial evidence. In fact, under these circumstance one could easily argue that this is exactly what it means to have good testimonial evidence. One shouldn't rule out the evidence simply because it doesn't fit a certain narrative or world view.
Consistency is the most important part of these testimonials, and as I've mentioned before there is enough consistency coupled with enough objective verification to assume that there is something much more than just hallucinations taking place.
Quoting Greta
While it's true that there is much that we don't know about how one's consciousness could exist apart from a body, that in itself doesn't mean that what's happening isn't a veridical experience. It's also true that there is much that we don't know about our everyday consciousness, but that doesn't mean we're not conscious, after all there is a huge amount of data that suggests we are. In the same way, there is a huge amount of testimonial evidence that suggests that consciousness survives death, should I be dissuaded because I don't understand all of the mechanistic underpinnings of such an event. I would say yes I should be dissuaded if there wasn't any evidence to support it, but again, there is a huge amount of evidence.
Quoting Greta
Good question, since there is no doubt that our memories play a large part in who we are as persons, and continuity of not only our memories, but also our experiences are extremely important in maintaining the continuity of who we are as individuals.
From my own studies of thousands of these testimonials it is clear that not only do we keep the continuity of our memories, but the stories that people have of encountering their deceased relatives is that the relatives also keep the continuity of their memories and their experiences. In fact, if anything is the case, more of our memories return when having the out-of-body experience.
I don't find any of this speculative at all. I find the argument to be very strong.
Moreover, there is objective evidence or confirmation that what those having an NDE are seeing, is confirmed by those not having the experience, but in the vicinity. For example, the doctor and nurses working on them while there is no heart beat or brain function, the kind of procedures that are being performed, the conversations of those near the body, etc. These kinds of visual experiences are the same kinds of visual and auditory experiences that people are having in the same vicinity of the body, which by definition isn't hallucinatory.
As to the second paragraph, I suppose someone with a vested interest in a mind-brain identity theory of one kind or another might challenge the claim that there is no brain function in these patients. Perhaps there is no recorded brain function using basic EEG, but what about MRI scanning? Is there recorded evidence of patients reporting NDEs whilst undergoing MRI brain scans that show absolutely zero brain activity? Genuine question - I would be interested to read any links to such cases.
I haven't read the entire thread; but, words derive their meaning by the way they are used, and currently talking about NDE is grounded by convention of science (although, I think Quantum Mechanics and the 'observer' effect is changing minds about the issue) or the 'rules of the game' at play say that the whole thing must necessarily be empirical. So, what I'm saying is that maybe a new paradigm shift is needed to rescue the subjective validity of Near Death Experiences from the dogmatism of the empirical and whatnot to some objective and palpable phenomenon.
While it is true that how we use words tells us something about meaning, and you're right to focus on use, it's also important, though, to understand that use and even context can mislead us. For example, if we take Wittgenstein's point about the beetle-in-the-box, the word beetle is used in a particular way, viz., to point at something in the box; however, because it's used in this way, it doesn't mean it's used correctly. So while it's important to understand that use gives us more information about meaning, it can also be misused. This also points out why people shouldn't try to develop theories of meaning based on use, which by the way, was one of the reasons (I believe) that Wittgenstein was against developing a theory of language.
I don't think we need to rescue the subjective validity of NDEs. In fact, if NDEs were based simply on subjective experiences I would reject them. My point has been that there is good objective evidence to suppose that the experiences are real, and by real I mean that they are just as real as any everyday experience. Remember that any experience has a subjective component. However, if an experience is only subjective, then it would be hard to extract any meaning from the experience. What I mean is, it would be similar to Wittgenstein's beetle-in-the-box. If you're saying that the objective needs to be brought into the experience I agree.
Ultimately Sam, no matter which way you look at this issue the answer always must be "maybe". While there is much fascinating anecdotal evidence for an afterlife, it's still only anecdotal. — G
The word anecdotal carries with it the idea of not being reliable, i.e., a story that may or may not be true. However, can we use the word anecdotal when describing millions of stories of the same experience? The answer would depend, but depend on what? It depends on whether the story is consistent, whether the stories come from a variety of sources (different cultures, age groups, different religions, different world views, occurring under a variety of circumstances, whether the stories can be backed up with primary sources, i.e., people who also were there, etc), this would put a higher premium on the stories. Under these circumstance on could say that we have good testimonial evidence. In fact, under these circumstance one could easily argue that this is exactly what it means to have good testimonial evidence. One shouldn't rule out the evidence simply because it doesn't fit a certain narrative or world view. — Sam26
Certainly anecdotal evidence is considered the weakest type in science or in courtroom but, as you suggest, if many witnesses provide similar evidence then credibility improves markedly. Yes, something interesting is definitely going on that's worth investigating, given the profundity of the end-of-life situation.
My reservations come from the gap between our perceptions and actual reality, noumena, which means that our common physiological characteristics may result in common end-of-life mental and emotional effects.
------------------
Consistency is the most important part of these testimonials, and as I've mentioned before there is enough consistency coupled with enough objective verification to assume that there is something much more than just hallucinations taking place. — Sam26
I agree that NDEs are not just hallucinations or dream. In a hallucination or dream, our perceptions are inconsequential to our ensuing physical (if not, mental) reality. In an NDE, when the senses have shut down, the external physical reality is basically over and thus becomes almost completely inconsequential. At that point, subjective reality is everything; there is nothing else, no input, no external future.
How long does this subjective reality last and how long is it perceived to last? With time dilation, the few minutes it takes for the brain to die could conceivably result in increasing time dilation that might even feel like eternity.
------------------
... given the extraordinary changes that occur in us between womb and grave, it's rather difficult to see continuity. Wipe our memories and we effectively become someone else. Where did the original "you" - who is now effectively dead or dormant - go? Where is it during deep sleep? — Greta
Good question, since there is no doubt that our memories play a large part in who we are as persons, and continuity of not only our memories, but also our experiences are extremely important in maintaining the continuity of who we are as individuals.
From my own studies of thousands of these testimonials it is clear that not only do we keep the continuity of our memories, but the stories that people have of encountering their deceased relatives is that the relatives also keep the continuity of their memories and their experiences. In fact, if anything is the case, more of our memories return when having the out-of-body experience. — Sam26
Just checking the objective (out there) situation, there is physical continuity from before life, to life, to after life which could theoretically be traced back forensically, understood and even reproduced with sufficiently advanced knowledge and technology - hence the various simulation hypotheses. While the memory of everything that has ever happened is still embedded in the fabric of evolving reality (or at least that which hasn't fallen into a black hole), access and organisation of it would seem another matter.
The problem Greta (and thanks for the reply) is that any kind of common perceptual experience can be said to "result in common" life experiences, whether end-of-life or not. I think the way to look at these experiences, especially given there are so many, and given the consistency of the experience, is to look at them as we look at any veridical experience, unless their is wide inconsistency. I say wide inconsistency, because any large group of testimonials about any veridical experience will have some inconsistency, that's the nature of testimonial evidence. Another important point about the testimony is that there must be some objective way of examining the testimonial evidence. The point being that even if you have large numbers of testimonials, if it's completely subjective, then there's going to be a huge problem. In the case of NDEs there is plenty of objective evidence from those who were there and saw what happened, so as to be able to corroborate much of the testimony, or at least some of the testimony. This also includes medical records, as well as doctors, nurses, and family members.
Quoting Greta
My research indicates that the senses don't shut down. In fact, people report heightened awareness, which is unusual because the brain is in a state of shutting down. This also goes against a criticism of those who think that these experiences are the result of a common brain experience that occurs when dying (as you suggested above). Again though, how is it that if the brain is shutting down people who are blind can see, or people who have been deaf their whole life can hear. These are experiences of those who have been sensory deprived. And those who haven't been sensory deprived report seeing colors that are not part of our normal color spectrum. Also people report have 360 degree vision, and hearing the conversations of those who are miles away from where their having their NDE.
I've already talked above about the subjective critique.
It may be that the brain is more of a filter and less of a generator than we once believed. My understanding is that, after a period of unusual lucidity, any sensing going stops pertaining to the external world.
Some rigorous experiments were conducted for some time without finding a single case of a dying person identifying things placed too high in the room for them to see without lifting up from the physical body. Not one. I was disappointed because I'd found the anecdotes convincing. Still, they were the results.
As regards heightened senses, witness reports of end-of-life blindsight and lucidity in the blind and senile suggest the brain-as-filter model, with the offending blockages released en route to the brain shutting down (it may well depend which parts of the brain shut down first).
An example of truly heightened senses without filtering is in Jill Bolte Taylor's well known account of her NDE, or at least the waking from it. When she re-emerged, she found all light and sound intolerably intense. That is an example of how brains filter incoming data to make it both comprehensible and, apparently, tolerable.
BTW, just by way of introduction or clarification ... people online have sometimes been unsure as to my agenda or point re: NDEs. I actually don't have an agenda or belief. Rather, I am just curious about NDEs and enjoy chatting about them :)
Our perceptions are limited, in the first instance, in determining what is the body one supposedly leaves in order to view it from another point in space, as with an 'outer body experience'.
Perception informs us that our body's outer surface is the skin. However, this is a perception limited the extent to which perception is programmed over countless generations. A program which constructs and pictures - memories which inform the present experience.
It could be that one's body takes up far greater space than the visible one which appears enclosed in the skin.
This is because density is relative to perception. If one mechanically changes one's perceptions of what appears to be dense skin by looking at this layer through a microscope then one will notice there seems to be more space than any dense form of matter.
So effectively this could mean the thing which gives us the picture of bodies and rooms, etc - the viewpoint from which things are perceived, may be able to occasionally act more fluidly by changing it's position within a body of which most of it is invisible to regular perception (without something like the mechanical aid of a microscope.
So if one "leaves their body" they may have merely experienced a different location within a much larger invisible aspect of body from which to view the denser perceivable example of it.
So, for example, one's body, although mostly invisible to our limited perception, could be as large as a block of 3 houses.
So some event may occur which could jolt the habitual viewpoint location out and away into another location in space only then to view objects, one object of which being the usual perceived and apparent skin encapsulated form we had merely become habitually accustomed to being the entire form of the individual body.
I'm not sure what it would mean for our bodies to take up a greater space than what's visible. There's no evidence that that's the case. If you're using NDEs as examples I don't see it. One reason is that people are seeing their bodies from a 3rd person perspective - they're looking at their bodies from a place in space quite separate from their bodies. Also, even if the bodies energy extends further out from the body than is commonly thought, how is it that people having an NDE seem to move much much further than what you're speculating about? People have had NDEs where they're looking at Earth from a place in space, your idea wouldn't account for such an experience. For your account to be reasonable we would need some evidence that the body is larger than what we observe, and even if it is, it still wouldn't discredit these experiences.
A shade off topic but, actually, there is evidence. Our microbiome, for example, extends beyond our bodies; we carry a cloud of our microbes around us at all times, as well as an EM field and a heat field. There is also a mental field interpreted as personal space. There are also the fields of our senses that extend a long way from our bodies.
These things are not generally interpreted as as "I", not only because we can't see them, but we can't feel them - they don't trigger our nervous systems. Thus, we are not evolved to perceive all that we are, just the aspects that played the greatest role in survival.
Auras could conceivably be an example of a larger area of body - a more subtle, finer (of matter) ethereal area.
I have witnessed these 20 feet above people where the atmospheric conditions allow. Maybe we extend beyond those out into space.
I see your point, but how would that explain the experiences people are having in an NDE? Let me put it this way, there is no evidence that the extension of our body in the ways you describe, are extensions that would give rise to these kinds of experiences. And I agree that we don't perceive all that we are, in fact, I think NDEs give evidence that we are more than this body.
NDE suggests to me that the “point of view” we typically associate as located within the eyes is more fluid than presumed.
“Point of view” from eye location, I think, is a habit of mind. It becomes a location that is expected. Memory of all past experience is data fed into the present thereby influences what is seen and experienced.
Analogously, when we're viewing a monitor of a security camera feed, the point of view is "located within the camera".
One criterion for strong testimonial evidence is corroboration. If multiple people testify to witnessing an event then the claims corroborated by the testimony have more weight as evidence. (likewise, if people testify to not-witnessing something when they allegedly should have, it weakens the testimonial evidence)
Another criterion is the credibility of witnesses. If a witness has a clear bias (such as a conflict of interest or having been inebriated at the time) then this can weaken the inductive strength of testimony as evidence.
Falsifiability is a great attribute for improving the strength of testimonial evidence. The more you try and fail to falsify a claim, the stronger that claim is shown to be.
This does not take memory and it's impact on perception - impact on "consciousness" into account.
Can you answer, therefore, this question. From where is "the light" you speak of "gathered from" in order to generate the experience of dreams, in all their colors, shapes and 3 dimension during sleep? Remember it is usually dark and eyes are shut.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Incorrect. While a monitor is viewed by "oneself" the point-of-view (POV) is located (habitually, imo) "within the eyes".
A camera and a monitor is, like the room they are in, merely part of that entire experience which is presumed to be the things we "see".
And "Analogously" refers to biology. A camera is not biological.
Photons that the eyes gather are turned into electrical and chemical signals that the brain then interprets. The data within the light that the eye gathers is what the consciousness sees.
Given our dreams clearly draw from our memories it's not surprising that they usually conform to them in many ways.
Quoting raza
What if you're wearing a VR headset?
Quoting raza
Analagously refers to "analogs" (as in: a person or thing similar to another). As it happens, "analogous" is used to describe comparisons between biological and non-biological things all the time: bird wings and plane wings are analagous; photosynthesis and solar panels; machine learning and human learning; cameras and eyeballs.
If you'd like to know more about the definition of analagous, feel free to have a read!
As with dream-sleep, the same "chemical signals that the brain then interprets" therefore produce our "awake" dream experience with added dimensions (touch etc). It is all "data" either in dream-sleep or awake-sleep.
It is all on a spectrum of illusion. Senses denote points on that spectrum.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Of course. Distance between objects is irrelevant. It is still two objects, brain and vr headset.
Although "you", I argue, are the entire experience of "brain" and "vr headset". The dream is two objects or the "I" in the room.
"You" can only logically be whatever the entire experience is.
And this understanding, therefore, accommodates (not for simple convenience) a greater space within which POV can locate.
After all, an "outer body experience" often occurs as a result of a sudden impact-like trauma which therefore may JOLT one from the habit-of-mind state which constructs the common POV location experience (although an OBE can also eventuate via subtle shifts of consciousness, astral projection etc).
All of these have been talked about, and you're right, corroboration, credibility, and falsification are all part of a good argument. My argument was presented at the beginning of this thread, several posts down from the first post.
https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploads/sites/360/2017/03/NDE-85-MCQ-ConCog.pdf
The following video is interesting, especially the first few minutes. Start at 3:27.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RGizqsLumo
Part of this is a response to Aleksander's comment just above, but it goes beyond his question. Could it be a dream, Aleksander asks?
It's just another level of consciousness (awareness) that we choose to experience for a variety of reasons. You won't know, at least many of us, what those reasons are until you return to the source of your being, at least not fully. Some of us do feel we know our purpose. For example, some people have always known that they wanted to be a doctor, teacher, scientist, etc, but most of us who live average lives don't have a sense that we should be pursuing x, y, or z. So for the average person their sense of purpose tends to be muddled in a myriad of small seemingly insignificant acts or experiences. Remember that everything you do has significance, even the smallest of things, yes, even your responses in this forum has significance. Any interaction with another person has significance, and while it's true that we are all part of an ultimate consciousness (for lack of a better description), at the core of this consciousness is love; and to the degree that you're able to express this love, you can be sure that that is definitely part of what you should be doing, part of your purpose. And no matter what we believe, most of us would agree that being kind to others, even to the most vulnerable (animals for e.g.) is a good thing, even to those we loathe.
What is the source? it's ourselves, we are the source, we along with many others are the co-creators of this reality, and all realities. There is no God in the religious sense, that's just man's way of trying to describe what he feels at a deeper level. The closest thing to a God is this source, but we are part of the source, we are one with it, all of us. In a very real sense, we are god. Every thing that exists is ultimately connected to the source. It's our home, where we come from, where we get our life. Moreover, we are eternal beings, who live out many different lives in different realities. Sometimes we choose to come back to this reality, which is probably where the idea of reincarnation came from.
As I said above we make the choice to come here, we actually agree to certain things before we come here. Part of this agreement includes the suppression of many of our memories, choice of parents, when we die, who are children might be, and the choice of some or even all of what we experience.
I'll end here for now.
This is one example of what life is about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89VlnvGnP2s
According to esoteric traditions like Gnosticism, Hermeticism or Neoplatonism our loss of memory of who we are or of where we come from is basically a disease. A result of an ancient spiritual fall.
My beliefs run parallel (for the most part) with @Sam26 particularly in the sense of life's unity. Anyway, I would like to contribute my opinion on the 'suppression of memory'.
I think if asked to retell anything about any of our past day(s) in life, especially the most memorable, whether the best or worst of moments, it would be difficult to express every detail to the hour, let alone minute. We lose a lot of information to our untrained capacity to remember. While I cannot offer any proof of reincarnation/metempsychosis, I do find it rather captivating in the way it unifies experience and, somewhat, in accordance with the scientific law that, "energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed." (Reincarnation is all about transformation of 'human' energy.)
Anyway, sorry I digressed a bit there, the 'suppression of memory' seems to me as an 'unachieved capacity' to fully recall, not just our current life experiences but all our experiences as 'human' energy (or souls, spirits, consciousness, ego, self, etc, whichever your currency is). This, to me, somewhat explains such phenomenon as people who have eidetic memories or perfect recall, people who claim to remember past lives with high levels of accuracy, or people like the Buddha, whom it is said, recalled all his past lives through all the levels of evolution, from the beginning to his present, during his meditations. Perhaps with time and through certain disciplines we learn to 'more fully' remember (realize) our connection to life (or God, energy, etc, again, per your currency).
I wouldn't say the 'suppression' is unintentional, more of, it's a choice whether we are aware or unaware of it. It can be intentional in the sense that, the wisdom extracted from the experience is of significance while the minute details or circumstances are not, hence our analytical and memory processes work in unison to give what is necessary.
I'm grey on this topic so I'm still trying to process it.
But we don't have much choice about suppressing our memory when we fall asleep. It just happens as we fall asleep. Maybe it is similar with the suppression of memory during incarnation - it just happens and there is not much we can do about it. Maybe one day we will be able to control it. Maybe one day we used to be able to control it but we lost that ability due to a spiritual fall, as the esoteric sources say.
Well, the dream analogy isn't perfect, but I do believe that when we choose to come here, part of making that decision is the suppression of who we really are, what we know, and where we're from. We make an agreement when we come here, for e.g., we agree to come here for a certain period of time, which is why people who have NDEs are told it's not their time, you have to go back.
I am questioning the wisdom of suppressing our memory to the point of having horrible experiences with not much meaningful benefit. Sure, you can learn from anything but there is a difference between taking a good course and taking a crappy one. We would not intentionally take a crappy course if we could take a good one instead. Taking a crappy course in such a situation would be an unintentional mistake or maybe a sign of mental illness.
Even if I couldn't ultimately be harmed why would I choose to go through hell without not much to learn from it?
First, I believe there is much to be learned from every situation. Secondly, you got me thinking, what about addiction? Addicts do choose to go through hell and most often without much to learn from it. I think the balance between knowing and not knowing has many shades of grey.
I was talking about the suppression of our memory of our original loving nature. Supposedly we were once able to live with that awareness just fine, so losing the ability to handle such an awareness seems like a degradation and restoring that ability seems like a rehab. Dealing with traumatic memories from the degradation, including their intentional temporary blocking, may be part of the rehab, but that too shows that a degradation did occur.
From what I've learned from esoteric studies, the progression as we evolve from our initial, through our transitory and to the final phase of life cannot have a regression. There may be delays but never regression.
The teaching goes something like:
Initially, we are like 'electrons' in the 'sun'. We have the warmth and light (love and wisdom) of the 'sun' but we are solely dependent on it. That is, by ourselves, say the 'electrons' are hurled through space, the warmth and light would diminish gradually. Therefore, our evolution is the process by which we learn to become 'suns' and have the capacity to give warmth and heat of our own volition and nature.
Does this make any sense?
Remember, I am just questioning the claim that we intentionally choose to forget our original identity. How many near-death experiencers made this claim? And what makes you think that their claim is more accurate than the claim that forgetting our original identity was a regrettable mistake, a claim made by esoteric traditions that supposedly stemmed from similar experiences or revelations?
But that is obviously a regrettable mistake, something similar to spiritual fall.
I don't know about mistakes or spiritual fall but I understand it from the perspective of necessity and choice. Necessity is law, Choice is will. Choice must align to Necessity. We choose to act in a certain way, we reap repercussions according to law.
Then you probably mean something else than Western esoteric traditions like Gnosticism, Hermeticism or Neoplatonism, all of which claim that forgetting our original (divine) identity was a spiritual fall. Gnosticism even condemns the material world as evil, while Hermeticism and Neoplatonism regard the material world as part of an overall good creation and the souls' incarnation in it as part of divine plan but still insist that the souls made regrettable mistakes during their incarnation in the material world. Eastern mystical religions like Hinduism and Buddhism show a similar rejection of the material world as Gnosticism.
Quoting BrianW
Yes, but there are better and worse ways of learning something. You wouldn't want your child to learn that fire hurts by incinerating their hand. It is better to show them how fire can destroy an inanimate thing and let them come closer to fire so they can feel the increasing heat without getting to the point of getting burned. There seems to be a similar difference between learning through a "righteous" path and learning through a fall and then recovering from it.
There was a project related to NDE. In short, at places where NDE are likely - objects were placed at places not normally perceived. The goal was to ask persons after their ND experiences about objects perceived during NDE...
The project is still in progress and there is no official report...
Enjoy the day, :cool:
Also try theosophy (mixture of eastern and western esoteric teachings), yoga (old teachings by Swami Vivekananda and Swami Sivananda, new by Dr. Vladimir Antonov - Swami Centre), books by William Walker Atkinson/Yogi Ramacharaka, also Bhagavad Gita, Spiritism books by Allan Kardec.
Objectively I was still alive.
A consciousness that is independent of being-in-the-world is absurd.
I maintain this even after having had this experience.
What I would personally think is that in death or in a NDE, MAYBE, the experience of time becomes in such a way that, when compared to the usual experience of time with others, the experience creates the illusion of the independence of consciousness from corporeality.
The best information about NDEs is with reference to DMT. That is the best reference I can give.
First off, there's nothing that separates us from other animals other than higher cognitive functions. This higher function is the result of evolution and the byproduct of this evolution is our ability to think in abstract ways. This can lead to illusions of us being of a higher existence than animals, but in essence we are not, no data support that we are. Therefor, we are like animals and animals consciousness should therefor also continue after their death. Animal tests on this does not show any data that support that this is the case.
In psychology and neuroscience there's strong hypotheses about what happens when we die. The trauma that the body and brain goes through at the moment of death most likely fires off all the neurons in our brain in order to try and kickstart everything. This process resembles seizures and REM states, meaning if all neurons are firing, you might get a large flow of memory data scrambled together, like in dream sleep. This is why people can provide witness reports of events that they experienced at the moment of a near death experience. However, there's no correlation with those reports and anything actually supernatural.
We humans also have a tendency to be biased to what comforts us. Most of us have had deaths around us in our life and it's easier for us to cope if we believe that our friends and family are in a better place. However, this is a false comfort based on our need to overcome grief and cannot be used in an argument for the survival of the mind after death. We don't know if it's true, but we want it to be true and the "want" is so great that even the most intellectual mind can be teased into believing in an afterlife. This is probably why there are so many scientists that still believes in some religion, even though they are trained to view big questions with the scientific method.
We are therefor extremely afraid of death without an afterlife. It's a concept that is the most terrifying we can think of. That everything we were, everything we are goes right into the trash can, like a hard drive that fails to boot and you realize that everything you had on it is gone. But everything points to that being the truth. Therefor I think many have a missed opportunity in which they believe in an afterlife and therefor does not care for this life. If you know and understand that everything ends with all your memories destroyed and all the knowledge you had gathered, gone, then you might care for leaving that knowledge behind. We do it with our kids, but we can also do it, like we do it here, writing it out, expanding our thoughts and ideas, sharing them. Too many live their life in a closed space, waiting for an afterlife that probably never comes. That is the depressing waste of a life.
The only thing that could be considered close to a consciousness surviving death would be our gut bacteria. Researchers have found that our way of thinking might be influenced and work in symbios with our gut, i.e the bacterial makeup of our intestines. When we die, these bacterias are the first to eat us from the inside, they live on, feeding on the corpse and if there was any kind of consciousness that they make up with us, that's the only thing that exists after death, however, that might be considered "life" and not the supernatural energy we think of as consciousness after death.
The easiest way of thinking about our life is to compare it to a computer. It's turned on, with a blank hard drive. It has a boot up system that functions as our motor cortex, the things that makes us move as a body, but we have no mind, no memory to drive our identity. So we install an operating system, the basic genetic makeup of who we are, based on previous data from our parents. In that operating system, we gather information, we fill up the hard drive. Some hard drives are larger than others, some have problems, some have software errors and some have hardware errors. But the longer the computer is running and the more work it does, the more information is stored and the more it can do. The more programs installed, the more capabilities it has. Then the fans cooling the system gets broken, the cooling paste for the processor starts lacking, we patch it up, we try to keep it going, some drives start failing, corrupting data, it can't remember stuff well, remember stuff scrambled and with errors. Until one day, the drive fails, the processor fails, the power fails, and the life it had is dead, all data gone, corrupted, corroded. Others cannot access it, it's gone, but some of the data was uploaded, some information got saved to the network and others can gather around this info and use it going forward. But the drive will never work again, it is gone and that's that.
This analogy has one silver lining, if we are speaking in materialistic terms. If we find a way to remove the hard drive before it gets corrupted and we find a way to make it work in another system, we could potentially move consciousness from the body. However, our consciousness and the structure of our neurons are one and the same. This is why uploading our mind into a computer as in transhumanism only works as a copy, the original still remains. The copy might believe it was "moved" over to the computer system, but it wasn't. The best example of this in a story is Ghost in the Shell (anime), it both shows the only way to use a human mind in a robot body, in the way of actually moving the brain into another body, but also, the uploading and syntheses that happen in the end clearly states a new form, not that the others were moved. They died to create a new synthesis, which is a new life form, not the old, essentially the child.
So, in conclusion, there's nothing to suggest there's an afterlife, nothing to suggest that anything supernatural happens at the moment of death. Our consciousness works close to how a computer works and the same rules apply to us as anything else in the universe, meaning when we fail, we are gone. The probability that our consciousness keeps on existing after our death is minimal to non-existing and most suggestions that it does seem rooted in the deep fear of death and the deep need for the comfort of it's concept. However, if we're drawing up a deductive or inductive argument around this, there's little to support any claim that our consciousness can exist after death or go on to any afterlife.
We are of meat and matter, we are of neurons with electrons, we are that of a machine fearing non-existence so much that we deny our existence as it is. The greatest delusion of our species.
Emotionally, are you ok with an afterlife?
Ok with an afterlife or ok without an afterlife? I feel comfort in there not being an afterlife, since I accept it and live life by it. To live life and come to a conclusion that there isn't any afterlife at the end would be more horrific than living life as if it ends completely. As I mentioned, it's emotionally more comforting to think that there is an afterlife, but it's a delusion, the bliss of ignorance. It's seducing to comply to the idea of an afterlife since it's comforting, but comfort is not truth and accepting truth as it is and finding true comfort within truth rather than in delusion has a greater strength as a foundation for life than anything else.
Being ok with an afterlife is somewhat of a non-question since being ok without an afterlife is the more emotionally demanding. To be ok with the existence of an afterlife is like being ok with me living tomorrow, and the next day and the next. It has no real value other than just being. But being ok with that I won't live tomorrow demands of me to find a much more complex and demanding emotional foundation to exist on. That is the hard route, but I rather go by truth, than by comfort, rather be as true to existence as I can than live in ignorance in order to shield myself from the truth.
Stretching the evidence and the conclusions and scientific findings in order to support the concept of an afterlife is acting like Don Quijote. If you are thorough in any other field of science, but stretch the evidence thin whenever you adress the concept of an afterlife, you are acting ut of comfort and not truth. Do not assume the premises to be correct in order for the conclusion to be correct. If the premises clearly doesn't show any evidence for an afterlife, there isn't any and any notion of there being one is a delusion out of comfort, not out of truth.
Emotionally.
I thought I would probably have to rise up and destroy the universe. But I wasn't very happy at the time.
Sounds iike a really bad version of a trip that you didn't actually have, no disrespect. :up:
No disrespect.
Unfortunetely no, since I wanted to add my input on the matter when I saw it, so I only read the original post for this. If what I've been writing about has already been adressed I'm not taking away anything from that, I just wanted to add to it. Sorry if it felt like ignoring arguments, that wasn't the intention. :smile:
But even so, more spiritual arguments keeps coming under this subject, which ignores the scientific arguments, so I'm still waiting for any deductive/inductive reasoning for the existence of consciousness after death, which I have never really seen. Metaphysics have essentially been replaced by science during the last hundred years so I usually find it hard to see philosophy argue metaphysics rationally in modern times. It becomes more spiritual and disregarding true dialectics.
Quoting Sam26
If the process of dying is the same for everyone, does the testimonials not just describe that same process in it's subjective experience? Example: Everyone who drinks alcohol can describe the same consequence of being drunk, does that mean something supernatural exists or just that the process of getting drunk is the same? Same goes for near death experiences. If the process is the same, the testimonials should look similar or the same to everyone. The tunnel with people at the end of it would be the same if the same process of the dying brain is the same. You can induce similar experiences in people if you create the same conditions for them and the small variants might be because of the differences in memory and identity of the one experiencing them. Testimonials does then not equal any existence of the supernatural.
Quoting Sam26
Yes, but some experiences we have are rooted in the biology of being a human. These shouldn't be mixed up with experiences that happens between all cultures and people for being supernatural, the conclusion is just that we share some experiences based on our physical and neurological existence as humans.
Quoting Sam26
But this still doesn't account for experiences based on basic similarities between humans by their physical and neurological makeup. We are more similar to each other than we are different, meaning that under certain conditions we experience the same things and would report the same when asked. It doesn't prove that there is something after death.
Quoting Sam26
In essence, you mean backing up the testimony with external evidences? Yes in that case.
Quoting Sam26
If the experience can't be proven to be something supernatural, it doesn't really matter if it's a first hand accounts. Yes, it makes it stronger than hearsay, but if the first hand testimony can't be proven to be an experience of supernatural form, it cannot prove anything about consciousness existing after death.
Quoting Sam26
Unfortunetely, testimonial accounts cannot be used as evidence and cannot lead to a conclusion. It can be in support of evidence, but it cannot be used as evidence since there's no correlation between it and with the truth or falseness of the claim of consciousness existing after death. You need to be able to measure that consciousness exists without the neurons. If a person gets his brain destroyed and you could measure the existence of his consciousness in the room after it, that would be evidence. However, how such proof would be attained is impossible to say, if it's even possible to measure.
Testimonials of near death experience does not prove anything in of themselves. They only provide accounts of experiences linked to the experience of death, meaning, they might say something about what happens to our consciousness while the brain is dying and shutting down. It's an interesting thing, but it does not prove anything about the consciousness existing after death or transcending to any afterlife.
.
None of us here have died (and remember it).
.
.
Of course you never experience the time when your body has completely shut-down. Only your survivors do.
.
You’re taking a Literalist interpretation, when you speak of whether or not you’re still there at the time when, from the point of view of your survivors, you’re gone.
.
As I’ve pointed out in other threads, there’s no such thing as “oblivion”. You never arrive at or experience a time when you aren’t.
.
You’d agree that death is sleep, and that that sleep becomes deeper and deeper. …but with you never reaching a time when you aren’t. …though you become quite unconscious, in the sense that there isn’t waking-consciousness.
.
To quote Shakespeare:
.
“To sleep, perchance to dream.”
.
.
What kind of instrument-readings were you expecting? :D …with instruments like in Ghostbusters?
.
From the point of view of the investigators, the animals that died are quite dead.
.
See above.
.
-----------------------------------------
.
Well, if someone is the kind of person who is expected to go to Hell, would he be hoping that there’s an afterlife?
.
In the East, there’s the expressed goal of an end to lives, a time when reincarnation isn’t needed and doesn’t happen.
.
At this forum, at least one poster has expressed that he doesn’t want there to be an afterlife or reincarnation.
.
So you’re greatly over-generalizing when you say that everyone is hoping for an afterlife.
-----------------------------
You keep referring to the “Supernatural”. The Supernatural consists of contravention of physical law in scary movies about werewolves, vampires, murderous mummies, etc.
.
Usually it’s just the Materialists who speak of “The Supernatural” (contravention of physical law) and seem to want to attribute beliefs about that, to non-Materialists.
----------------------------------------------------
.
A computer couldn’t care less if it gets turned off.
.
Michael Ossipoff
Thanks,
Sam
But that doesn't equal that there is. It just points out that there's no one able to witness it. However, if you use all the data, research and do an inductive argument with Occam's razor in mind, the conclusion is that it's most probable that there isn't anything after death. Everything therefore points to claims of an afterlife to be false. If we are to compare probabilities, there's little to support an inductive argument for the existence of an afterlife or consciousness existing after death. It's important to not get biased to the want and need of an afterlife and instead look at it with cold precision.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
But that is not sufficient as evidence for ay afterlife or surviving consciousness. Many of the survivors experiences can be explained through how the neurons work. Just focusing on the descriptions of survivors is extremely insufficient as evidence of anything.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
I only speak of that which I can rationally explain through existing evidence and logic reasoning. Anything else is delusions and fantasy. If we are to prove there's something after death or a continuation of out consciousness, we need more than just survivors description of their experiences. As I pointed out with my analogy about being drunk, there are biological functions that create similar experiences between humans because we consist of essentially the same functions. Therefore, the similarities between survivors experiences cannot be used as evidence for the existence of consciousness after death, since the similarities of these experiences may just be the consequence of what the brain does when it shuts down, how the neurons fire at that moment. Just like people recall that in the event of an accident, time seem to slow down, the subjective perception can create wild experiences under the right conditions. So the experiences by survivors of near death experiences are more likely to be the product of such processes in our brain. Attaching them to some supernatural explanation does not have any solid ground as an argument, since it assumes the premise is correct before the conclusion.
Of course, Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Of course you never experience oblivion and you don't, when you are dead, you are dead. I do not agree that death is sleep, when you are dead, your body is just dead meat, getting consumed by the bacteria that you lived in symbios with before. It's nothing more than what happens when you shut down the computer, with the added effect that this "computer" starts to decompose and starts breaking down the inner functions so that turning it on again is impossible. You wouldn't say that a computer is still "experiencing input" or anything when it's shut off, so why would we humans? To argue that we humans and our consciousness is more special than anything else in this universe is a bit arrogant by our species. Our brain and body, our mind works just as anything else, which means that there's nothing when we die, everything is gone and after our neurons have decomposed all those moments are lost (like tears in rain).
The explanation for the experiences that survivors talk about can made through the example of the accident I mentioned, in which people say time slows down. If all neurons fires at once, our perception of time can be stretched and they might recall spending a long time with all of those experiences, when they in fact only experienced it at the short moment of time when the neurons fired off before the brain shut down. Much like with REM sleep, in which we can sense that a long time has past but the actual sleep time was just a few minutes. Our perception of time in our delusions are different than experiencing reality fully awake, but there's nothing to prove any supernatural about this.
When you die, the neurons most likely fires on all cylinders, putting you through a very unique experience, unlike anything you've ever experienced. Then the brain shuts down and you are gone. If the body can be revived in that moment, before the decomposing has started, it is sometimes possible to turn "this computer" on again. If that happens, the experience that can be recalled is the experience when all neurons fired on full cylinders and recalling it would indeed sound like a profound experience. However, the emotional impact of these experiences should not influence how we measure if these are supernatural or natural consequences of our dying brains.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
And so are the humans that they've measured at their moment of death. So far, there's no evidence of anything leaving the body, existing outside of the body or any sign of consciousness existing after the moment of death. We are no different from animals and suggesting this is a bit arrogant of us. We didn't evolve to supernatural beings that transcend into something else, we are meat and bones, biology and genes just as much as any other species on this planet. Our evolution just brought us a way to analyse our surroundings to survive better and the byproduct was intelligence. There's nothing that points to anything else.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
I think that is kind of irrelevant since there's no proof of anything after death, so his choice of belief is irrelevant to proving anything about an afterlife.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Nirvana is exactly what happens after we die, there's nothing for us, we are gone. Anything else is desperation in face of this oblivion. It's a dark concept that there's nothing and that leads to people desperately trying to find comfort in other concepts. It's so intense that we make up fantasies about something else happening after we die, but nothing points to it and time and time again, it has been impossible to prove. In the East, they get the concept of Nirvana correct, but not the reincarnation part. It's better to view reincarnation or better yet, the eternal recurrence concept as a way of life, but when we die it's over.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Of course I'm generalizing, since it's impossible to account for every single persons will. There are those who want to swim naked in a pool of hot sauce, does that mean you can't propose that no one wants to bathe in hot sauce? It's semantics, the general idea is that most people wouldn't want things to just end, therefore, the concepts of an afterlife emerged throughout history.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
I consider religion to be supernatural belief. Afterlife and the continuation of the mind is derived from religious and spiritual concepts. Wild metaphysical philosophy is hard to argue with today since science has for the most part taken over it because of it's superior methods to reach proven results. Supernatural in this sense is what afterlife and mind after death is, since there's no evidence for it and concluding there to be such things without evidence or logic is more akin to the belief in ghosts, heaven etc. which is supernatural. Metaphysics should not stray from logic and rational reasoning, if so, it becomes fantasy and delusional that disregards facts.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
And a human couldn't care less when he's dead. And caring about dying or living proves nothing about an afterlife. The functions of the brain, mind and body resembles a computer in software and hardware, we are no special than the universe we live in. What we think about life and death does not change how life and death works. This is concepts that humans invented, not something that exists just because we say so.
In earlier times, before 'science' became the by-word for everyone trying to explain reality, the weight of a person's theories were measured in how logical they were and not necessarily on proof. Science would like to refute that, but then I ask: "If science is okay with the postulate that 'energy can neither be created nor destroyed... ' does it mean it has tested all the energy in existence and therefore has undeniable proof of that? Literally, that's a resounding NO! So, then, perhaps the answer to 'life after death' is not in the proof we may or may not have, but in how logical it would be for the presence or absence of that life after death.
But hey. Maybe I am delusional!
Have you heard of ego-death in a psychedelic experience?
In principle, we share agreement on life after death. As to application, I think the theosophical explanation of reincarnation and evolution of life is better than the others.
Quoting Blue Lux
None of this has any foundation in science. The reason we get consciousness is a combination of pre-programmed genetics that form the starting point of a human and then the neurons grow through sensory input, experience, motor functions and so on. There's nothing before life and when we die, those neurons decompose like a computer hard drive corroding with rust that can't be read or written to. To suggest that consciousness exists on some other realm or state of the universe cannot be proved and have no foundation in philosophy if it can't be argued properly. If you have the hypothesis that consciousness exists somewhere else and that consciousness continues after death, you need to lay forth an argument in support of that. Just throwing out ideas is not philosophy, at least not from where I stand.
Quoting BrianW
Energy is just energy, consciousness is not energy and energy is not "life" as you put it. You don't get another consciousness from other people when you feel the warm radiation from their bodies, do you? Heat is energy distribution. When we die, the energy that we've gotten from sun radiation, the food we ate, the stored fat in our bodies etc. slowly leaves us as heat radiation, electrons in our brain goes into this heat and then dissipates into lower states of energy that can't be felt as heat anymore. Entropy does it's thing, but the energy that leaves us is neither life or consciousness. Believing that is a radical misunderstanding of what energy is.
Quoting BrianW
I feel that you have a great misunderstanding of what science is or what the scientific method is. There's tons of research into the laws of thermodynamics. You are arguing against this science without any logical reasoning and no insight into how it actually works. A scientific theory means that it's proven, if it weren't proven you wouldn't be able to write on the computer you do now, since the whole reason we have technology as we do, is because we have used these theories to create such technologies. Science have proven what you argue it hasn't. If you don't understand the science, it doesn't mean it isn't a proven theory or doesn't exist. Your misunderstanding of what energy is, that through science that has been proven, and the result is a lot of the technologies you use in the modern world, then argue that the science is wrong. What you are doing is the begging the question fallacy and the assumed premises also assumes that the science is wrong, which it isn't.
Quoting Blue Lux
Your belief is your own, however, if we are doing serious philosophy on the subject, it demands more. Even the religious monks like St. Aquinas needed to try and create a logical reasoning behind their argument for God. Just throwing out ideas is not philosophy, subjective experience is not philosophy. It's a starting point, but it needs a correct argument, otherwise it's impossible to have a philosophical dialectic, since it's just opinions. If you have a hypothesis, you need to support it with solid premises that are true and not assumed true.
Quoting BrianW
But without logical reasoning and with fallacies in reasoning it's just religious belief.
Quoting BrianW
You still need a solid argument, otherwise it's just religious belief, spirituality, fantasy and so on. Philosophy requires serious thought, not just subjective belief and that's the end of it. I think the scientific method is also a very good way of thinking, meaning; you don't try and prove your idea, you try and disprove it, by any means necessary. If you cannot disprove your idea, however much you try and however someone else tries to do it, it then becomes proven, rational and logic in it's form.
Yes, everybody knows that corpses decay.
You seem to miss the meaning I'm trying to convey. If everything is energy, then life and consciousness would also fall in that category. If you don't appreciate the names, fill the blanks with what you may. Also, thermodynamics does not prove that 'energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed'. If it can, show me.
As to 'life after death', there is no definitive proof of what happens or doesn't happen but there is a logical argument that life (or the energy configuration commonly referred by that name) could not only be defined by the limits of the vibrations we interact with. I'm saying it is illogical to presume that life is limited within the rates of vibration of osmium (the densest solid - just googled it) and gamma rays (the highest frequency known yet). It is very logical to suppose lower and higher vibrations exist and in relation to lives like ours just as we now know there are gamma waves in the brain. And it may be that 'life after death' is just an energy relationship which we have not yet discovered.
Science is not supposed to claim that what it knows is everything to know. Life after death is about possibilities not definitives.
What you're referring to is not the scientific method. I think you're the one who's got things twisted. Are you implying Newton worked to disprove gravity?
Once a principle is proved, it can never be disproved. As to the inability to disprove something, it is just that - inability. It does not become proof of anything.
This statement is a still a fallacy. Energy and matter is what makes up the physical universe, life and consciousness are not energy, they are product of matter and energy, something that evolved from it and they are driven by it, but they aren't it themselves. You are making a general premiss seem connected to a very specific conclusion, which it isn't. Just because life is fueled by energy, doesn't mean life is energy and therefor life exists after death. The energy that is left after death is just thermal heat, there's nothing conscious or living about it. This misunderstanding of what energy is cannot be a premiss for the conclusion, because it's a misunderstanding of what energy is.
It's like saying; "If the sky is blue, and my shirt is blue, then my shirt is also the sky", it's a fallacy.
Quoting BrianW
And energy isn't living or is conscious so this doesn't support the conclusion that any life or consciousness exist after death. You use this misunderstanding of energy and thermodynamics as a premise for your conclusion I'm afraid.
Quoting BrianW
This is in no way a logical statement. You are assuming premisses to support the conclusion. The most logical inductive conclusion, based on actual science of thermodynamics, energy, matter and biology clearly points to there being no life after death or consciousness existing after death. You can't assume to be right in order to be right, it's like using the bible to try and prove that the bible is true.
Quoting BrianW
You are making up correlations and conclusions based on premises you either assume correct or invent to fit the narrative. There's nothing in this that has any basis in science at all and cannot be used to make anything logical whatsoever. You can't just link different matter with different forms of radiation, connect this to how our brain works and reach a conclusion that you call logical. In what way is this a rational argument?
Quoting BrianW
Science is science, it's a method to reach a conclusion that is based in evidence. Everything else is belief and while it's fine to believe, it cannot ever be used to prove or disprove anything. This topic isn't about spiritual ideas, it's a philosophical dialectic about the existens of life after death or consciousness after death. In this regard, it's irrelevant what people believe, what cannot be proven isn't logical or correct. The most logical and reasonable conclusion is the one that follows what facts that actually exist.
If you don't understand the facts, if you don't know what energy, matter and how the brain works, you can't make a conclusion based on premisses roted in that misunderstanding. That equals an error in the argument.
Quoting BrianW
Newtons discoveries were not made according to modern methods of scientific research. The methods of science have evolved for over 500 years. Have you have heard of Karl Popper? This is the scientific method derived from his epistemology and in any form of dialectic this should be the primary method in order to not get biased towards a certain assumed conclusion.
Quoting BrianW
What are you talking about? You have a hypothesis, you use Karl Poppers method of trying to disprove it and from that derive a conclusion that has been put through what he proposed as the process of falsification. It's standard practice in many areas of science, especially theoretical ones, in which you are limited in physical testing.
----
Belief and subjective ideas without any support in science cannot ever prove things like life after death or consciousness existing after death. Any claim that it can is a fallacy and in my opinion it's not philosophy anymore because it's impossible to have a proper dialectic if the arguments aren't properly formed or backed up. Assuming the premise correct in order to reach a true conclusion is a basic fallacy and impossible to argue against since there's nothing to argue against. If your conclusions are based on false premisses, then any attempt for me to counter this argument forces me to assume you are correct, when you haven't proven anything to be correct.
If you want to argue for life after death and consciousness after death you need a proper argument, with true premisses, everything else is irrelevant. Subjective belief and opinion isn't philosophy when it comes to modern metaphysics.
First, everything is energy, whether tangible or intangible (or an activity). Therefore, you need to check your definition.
Second, you need to google 'the scientific method'.
Third, just because consciousness doesn't fit your profile of science doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Does the mind exist? Does the psyche exist? Then, in the same way that a relationship between the brain and mind or brain and psyche exists, so we have the analogy between life and consciousness. If everything was 'physical', do you think doctors wouldn't have dissected the brain and found the mind and psyche? It's why this discussion belongs in metaphysics or spiritual or religious philosophy. Else, we would be talking about the physical.
Lastly, if your 'scientific method' is based on Karl Popper's method of falsification, then, it is deficient because all it does is find flaws. If it doesn't find any, then it approves. What if you can't falsify a statement, does that prove that it's right or that you are unable to?
The scientific method existed before Karl Popper and while his falsification method, points to the obvious, it does not add any conditioning (which wasn't known before) to the process. All it does is caution people not to be too quick to judge without as much consideration as possible, a proposition which I'm deflecting back to you.
I'm looking into consciousness the same way I would look into mind or psyche. If you can't, don't blame it on being un-scientific.
There's nothing wrong with my definitions. You assume energy in terms of a spiritual definition. Find me any evidence that suggest that consciousness and life is energy, other than in homeopathy, spirituality, new age and other forms of fantasy. Energy is nothing so exotic and complex as a consciousness. Matter and energy makes up the universe, so in that sense everything is energy or matter, but when you assert energy to be life and be consciousness, you are creating a definition of energy that isn't there, i.e you are assuming your premisses to be correct in order to support your conclusion, i.e a basic fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy
Quoting BrianW
No, you should do this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
----
Quoting BrianW
Stop doing straw man fallacies. No where did I say that consciousness doesn't exist or that the mind doesn't exist. But you seem unable to listen to logic here. As I described, the consciousness and the mind of a person exists because of the neurons, and the formation of neurons are the basis for the consciousness we have. This is the current scientific theory of the consciousness. There is no evidence for consciousness existing outside of the parameters of our biology and there's no evidence to suggest that our consciousness continue on after we die and our neurons shut down. If you want to dispute this and argue for this being able to happen, you have to put forth an argument that actually makes logical sense through proper argumentation. And stop making straw mans.
Quoting BrianW
They have, it's called the brain and neurons. What scientists still research is how everything works, but there are few who believe in some mystic idea about how the consciousness work.
Quoting BrianW
Metaphysics have been generally replaced by science over the course of the last hundred years. There are few serious philosophers who argue metaphysics outside of the facts provided by science. As for spiritual and religious philosophy I do not count those as philosophy, since they dismiss logic and rational reasoning in their argumentations. Religion/spirituality is religion/spirituality, not philosophy. If you are to reason in a philosophical manner, you need to keep your arguments correct and avoid fallacies, otherwise you aren't practicing philosophy. And calling something religious philosophy is just another name for "I want to argue without having proper facts or logic to back it up". Religious beliefs is irrelevant for a philosophical dialectic, even the old christian monks knew this and tried to focus on Aristotles way of reasoning, even though they were believers.
Problem today seem to be that too many just don't care to have logic or proper argumentation for their ideas, they just spew them out without caring to back them up. I call that sloppy to say the least.
Quoting BrianW
No, it caution people not to be biased to their own conclusions, which was my point. If you turn what others say into your own interpretation to fit the narrative you are doing fallacies once again.
Quoting BrianW
But you have no science and no facts to back up anything you say. What you think about it, what you believe is totally irrelevant. You do not possess the truth just because you believe it is the truth, that is delusional.
Why can't you make a proper argument with facts and logic deduction/induction for this topic? You are just arguing against everything, making things up to fit your narrative. Without a proper arguments based in facts and proper deduction/induction you have nothing other than religious/spiritual belief and that isn't even close to enough to support your conclusions.
This isn't a theological forum, it's a philosophical one.
This is wrong because it does not keep with the law that states 'like begets like'. A product of matter and energy would be matter and energy.
Quoting Christoffer
What you are stating is that consciousness and mind are limited to brain physiology. I'm saying there's physiology and psychology at work. One is physical and tangible, the other is metaphysical and intangible but both are manifest and interrelate in human activity. Is not psychology a science?
I repeat my point, there is no proof of persistence of consciousness after death or lack thereof. Considering the validity of the discussion is not a fallacy, it's part of the scientific process - questioning and considering the options.
Oh sure--I was in my '20s during the psychedelic mid-'60s.
The Tibetan Book of the Dead was popular then. I don't doubt that it might have some validity, but I don't claim to know about that.
Ii don't know what the experience of death will be like, and I don't know if the Tibetans knew either. But maybe they did.
That book speaks of a time when the person has a choice regarding whether to approach or avoid a next life. I don't believe that there's a choice. A person can strongly not want a next life, and they'll have one anyway if s/he isn't life-completed and lifestyle-perfected, ready and qualified for final rest.
Buddhism and Hinduism mostly seem to agree with that. Maybe the Book of the Dead was intended for people who are life-completed and life-style-perfected. But I don't know why such a person would have any need to make a choice in the matter. Nisargadatta said, in answer to a question, that his death wouldn't make the slightest difference for him.
Anyway, I don't claim to understand the Book of the Dead, or know how right it is.
I don't think that the use of psychedelics or other confusants (such as pot) helps, and I wouldn't recommend any of them.
When I was in my 20s, of there were a lot of songs on the radio that I--and surely most others--felt were drug-inspired songs. So I pretty much dismissed them at the time, except that sometimes they said something that I liked.
Well, I don't care how the songwriter arrived at his song, but some of those songs make a lot of sense.
For example:
"5D", by the Byrds
"The Rock and Roll Gypsies", by Hearts and Flowers
...to name a few.
That song by the Byrds has (especially at the end of the song) a lot of 12-string, with a strong bagpipe sound.
The "Rock and Roll Gypsies" has its rhythm played on an autoharp. What a distinctive instrument, with its loud, clangy, jangly sound.
(The 12-string has 6 pairs of strings instead of just 6 strings. Some of the pairs are, with respect to eachother, tuned to unison*, and some are tuned to octave. That's standard, if I remember correctly, but there are various other ways of relative-tuning the pairs (called "courses"), such as a 5th.)
* But of course it's never an exact unison, so there will be beats. Additionally, the 2 strings don't get plucked at exactly the same time, resulting in a phase-difference (as heard in echoing sounds, or when 2 radios are playing the same station, in different parts of the room) between their sounds.
(When you press a key on the autoharp, it damps all of the strings that aren't part of the chord that you're selecting. So, like a regular harp, with the autoharp you're only playing open, un-stopped strings.)
Both of those songs are at YouTube. Just google the title, followed by the artist, followed by "original studio version", followed by "YouTube". Of course those things are separated by commas.
Michael Ossipoff
It's fine, I have no intentions with continuing a philosophical argument with someone who can't provide a proper argument. As I said, this is a philosophical forum, not a theological or spiritual, arguments need to keep their premisses and conclusions as clean s possible. Even when they don't work, in a dialectic, the opposing side is meant to improve your own argument by challenging it. However that requires proper deductive and inductive reasoning. A total misunderstanding of science and how basic physics and biology work as the foundation for the conclusion leads no where and after pointing out all the problems over and over there's still no improvements. I'm new here so I believed this place to feature a bit higher level dialectics than other places online, but it seems there's people here as well who can't properly do philosophical discourse.
However, in my loooong posts I think I've laid forth the argument about NDEs and why there's little or even any evidence to suggest NDEs show that consciousness can continue after death or that life after death exists. My basic premisses for this revolved around first, how the neurons work and what likely happens when we die, i.e if all neurons show higher activity at the moment of death (proven by EEG tests on dying patients), the likely scenario is that the experiences function much like dreams with all engines burning. Since the perception of time is different in dreams than normally, experiences that in reality lasts for a few seconds before the neurons completely shut off, could feel like long lasting experiences. So time through these experiences cannot account for them having their consciousness exist during death, they would most likely remember it so, but do not have any input during the actual death part. Second, no evidence show that anything exists after a person has died, there's no brain activity and energy, which the previous guy misinterpret as some kind of spiritual life force, is just body heat dissipating from the body. There's nothing that shows anything else than the body shutting down, much like a computer shutting down, all the hardware failing and the software can't work without the hardware. Third, people have tendencies to hold what's comfortable closer to them than actual truth, so people are more biased towards something like spirituality or religion even when there's no evidence or anything to suggest it to be correct. This means people who generally are intelligent gets biased towards irrational belief and start putting together conclusions assuming their premisses to be true, when they aren't. In order to argue about NDEs properly, we need to look coldly at the facts and not use fantasy, belief, spirituality and religion as any foundation for it, if people can't do it, they will never reach a rational answer for this topic. Fourth, people can experience similar experiences if the same parameters are set in motion. This is also the foundation of the Multiple Discovery theory, i.e that if similar knowledge and experience exists for different people, they can come up with the same invention or discovery, since their line of thinking has the same pre-existing influences. In the case of NDEs, the similarities between accounts told by survivors would then basically be about people having similar experiences and therefor we see the same things when our neurons fire off at the moment of death. Studies have shown that NDE accounts differ between cultures and their culture's influence on the individuals, influence the experience during an NDE. This further points to the experience being the product of a dream like state at the moment of death. We dream about what exists in our life, if most of us live life in similar ways as everyone else, we have influences to these NDEs that are similar. Fifth, NDE accounts are rarely specific in detail, they are closer to describing a dream and when we try to remember something we have a hard time remembering, we fill in gaps. If someone saw a shadow figure, they might remember them as a relative, even though it was just a shadow. People do this all the time with real memories, but the abstract nature of dreams and NDE descriptions are far more likely to cause such distortions of what was actually experienced. Sixth, people tend to view intelligence as something other than natural evolutionary step, when nothing suggest otherwise. To view our intelligence as something spiritual or higher than nature is an arrogant egotistical viewpoint, i.e it's assuming that our consciousness is more special than anything in nature therefore we are higher than nature in that regard. Nothing points to this, our brains are no different from any other animal and when we die, we die just like other animals, so does everything we have in our brain, meaning the neurons making up our consciousness.
Conclusion for this is first that NDE experiences cannot prove anything about consciousness leaving the body, consciousness exiting the body and existing when the body and neurons are dead. It also cannot prove life after death or anything supernatural. It doesn't matter how many people gets interviewed, the data is flawed by the nature of what happens to these people and their inability to realize the physiological trauma the brain goes through. Therefor the only way to measure this is to invent something like an EEG that could register brainwaves in a room rather than just attached to the patients head. But that's a test made out of the premiss that our consciousness is higher than nature, which nothing points to.
I see no value in NDEs, since they are too subjectively flawed as experiences and there's nothing that can be used as facts for a proper scientific conclusion. If an argument cannot be presented without including spiritual new age, religious beliefs, lacking concept of what science is, misunderstandings of scientific facts or presented as pure fantasy statements, then it becomes a circular argument in which no one with that state of mind would reach any better understanding or conclusion. If you aren't able to change your view on the subject when going through a proper dialectic, and still continues to argue for something out of pure belief or subjective conviction, then you will go around in circles, being stuck in that belief.
If someone could present an argument for the validity of NDEs in the search for an answer to consciousness after death, that actually makes logical and reasonable sense, I will challenge my own argument, but so far I've only been met with ignorance to the premisses I've presented and a lack of understanding of what they actually mean or a lack of general understanding of basic science. I do not accept spirituality as part of metaphysic philosophy, not in 2018 when we have years of scientific research, facts and discoveries to inform us in our discourse.
There is no doubt that this argument of 'consciousness surviving the body' is just a hypothesis. Using the scientific method implies subjecting it to a number of rigorous tests each marking a degree which, if it passes, takes it closer to being considered as truth. However, without the last step, that of experimental testing and the conclusive analysis and deductions from the results achieved therefrom, it can never conclusively be said to be fact. However, the scientific method does allow a hypothesis to satisfy certain parameters which make it a 'working hypothesis' while the rigour of the scientific method proceeds. The argument 'consciousness does not survive the body' or 'consciousness does not exist' is not an invalidating argument, since it is not based on actual observation, and is just as un-empirical as the premise, and therefore cannot be used to dismiss it.
To think that we may be wrong in principle and be right in application (details) is quite the paradox. I often make my arguments in principle because they are more objective than individual applications which are liable to be misinterpreted (tinged with personal bias) and attached to the wrong fundamental principles, often due to a lack of in-depth investigation or by being too quick to dismiss a premise without checking to offer the proper conclusion deduced from actual experimental testing and therefore would be immature for such a summation.
I have studied philosophy and I believe (subjectively) that I know what I'm about.
Finally, one person 'feels' strongly that 'consciousness survives the body'; another 'feels' just as strongly it doesn't, but none can show proof. Therefore, don't claim fact!
You don't know what the hell you're talking about, the argument I gave on the first page of this thread is an INDUCTIVE argument.
No shit, it's a philosophical forum, I didn't know that. I don't mind responding to arguments, but I don't like having to repeat myself, especially when you come in here without reading a good part of the posts. If you're going to lecture someone about arguments, know what you're talking about. I know enough philosophy to know what an inductive argument is.
Besides you wouldn't know higher level philosophy if it jumped up and bit you on the ass.
Have a rational discussion! Get to the bottom of the differences!
"The meeting of two personalities is like a chemical reaction: if there is any reaction, both are changed." Carl Jung said something along the lines of this...
Clearly you two have had no real connection in discourse...
The first section (the one you quote) was about the previous poster, not you.
The later sections adressed NDEs, you clearly skipped that part and instead thought that everything revolves around you and your brilliance as a philosopher.
Previously in this thread I adressed your inductive arguments, which have a few problems. You never adressed those, so I now summarized every argument I had in that regard, I guess you couldn't handle it.
But now you continue with unnecessary ad hominems and hostility and for one that says you know how philosophy works, this hostile post just showed how you really don't know how to do it. So it's hard to take you seriously with that level of childish behaviour.
In a forum, everyone can chime in and discuss and I did that, adressing both your arguments and others. If you believe every post in here revolves around you, you don't know shit about how forums work. The previous pages of discussion evolved from the NDE discussion and you wanted to get back to NDEs which I did and you clearly didn't care to read.
Quoting Sam26
Get off your high horse. Your arguments aren't solid, I adressed them many times and you didn't even care to counter-argue, which is the point of a dialectic and not to act like a spoiled child.
But I guess what you just wrote is the level of philosophical debate you are after so I will leave you with your childish behaviour. Pathetic.
Have you heard of DMT? Especially endogenous DMT?
Psilocin in magic mushrooms is 4-HO-DMT
Quoting Blue Lux
I've heard of it, but I don't recommend psychedelics, pot, opioids, barbituates, benzodiazepines, cocaine, amphetamines, alcohol, or tobacco.
I favor discarding the drug-laws, because what someone does to themselves is entirely their own business, and drug enforcement is bankrupting public budgets. But I don't recommend drugs..
Michael Ossipoff
I have done it. I vaporized it.
When you do enough, you contact aliens. Literally. There are thousands upon thousands of accounts of witnessing other beings that try and communicate with you. Time slows down dramatically and you can feel like you are blasted out of your body into a hyperspace.
It functions as a pseudoneurotransmitter in the brain, and there is research about endogenous hallucinogens in the brain that mediate what experience is or consists of.
In the Amazon rainforest, native tribes have been drinking dmt in a brew called Ayahuasca, and they say they contact their ancestors and the spiritual world. People go there today to engage in ceremonies and the Ayahuasca experience has been shown to be able to alleviate the fear of death for cancer patients, as has LSD, and also people with severe depression, childhood trauma, PTSD, etc have all had extraordinarily positive benefits from Ayahuasca, as well as help with drug dependence...
The psychedelic known as ibogaine can completely take someone off of heroin.
I do not label psychedelic substances in relation to other drugs like opioids, benzos, barbituates, alcohol, cocaine, amphetamines, etc... They are simply too different. Psychedelic drugs affect the 5ht2a serotonin receptor, and that is very different than cocaine or amphetamines.
Anyway, MDMA or ecstasy was originally used for couples therapy or help with ptsd. It is termed as an empathogen because it literally causes empathy.
Sometimes I like to number some statements or topics.
-------------------------------------------
1. NDEs are valid. NDEs are unusual instances of return from an early stage of death. Dogmatic Materialists like to cite biological explanations. No sh*t :D All human and other animal consciousness is biological. What else is new..
Some people think that saying that consciousness is biological contradicts Idealism or the primacy and metaphysical priority of Consciousness. It doesn't.
Physical sciences explain things in the physical world in terms of other physical things. In and with respect to the physical world, events must make sense physically, and happen in compliance with physical laws. Physical law isn't contravened in the physical world.
(Likewise, by the way, more generally, in the describable realm, things must make logical sense, and logic isn't contravened. There's no need for brute-facts in physics or metaphysics, especially since there's a metaphysics that doesn't need a brute fact. In other words, kiss off Materialism and its brute-fact.)
So the biological nature of consciousness doesn't isn't an argument against the validity of NDEs.
2. According to an earlier poster to this thread, one or more careful scientific studies didn't find statistically-significant evidence that NDEs give a person information about events or objects around hir (him/her) that s/he hasn't seen. That isn't surprising, because, as i said, in the physical world, one wouldn't expect physical law to be contravened.
That in no way reduces the validity, relevance or importance of NDEs.
-------------------------------------------------
3. .
.
No one knows jack sh*t about the nature of consciousness or being. This is my position.
The meme argument would say the "after life/ OBE experience" is within the public psyche and so the brain deprived of sensory input attempts to predict where it is now and uses cultural attributions to fill in the gap (similar to filling in phenomena except at a higher abstract level). I'm not sure where you stand on naive realism, but I don't think the Sam Parnia experiment worked out too well.
The ideology explanation doesn't hold up, because people of vastly, entirely, different ideologies, religions, and philosophies have reported basically the same NDEs.
Michael Ossipoff
It wasn't really about ideology which is a complete structure but more meme based (as in an experience built out of tiny ideas which can some from anywhere). For example someone reads about the tunnel idea and then the brain constructs it because it seems to be a reasonable possibility. I also think the "ghost floating above a fallen body" is fairly universal in all cultures. There are ghost stories in every culture. Also there could be a biological/evolutionary counterpart, for example Dehaene claims his lab is able to trigger them by activating certain parts of the brain. Before I do something I always imagine myself in third-person vision doing it so perhaps it is an involuntary version of that mental process.
It would be interesting if the "silver cord" stuff has been reported by people unfamiliar with all the mythos behind AP/OBEs. I did reach the "vibration" stage long before I read any AP literature or knew anything about it.
What does "AP" stand for?
Michael Ossipoff
Astral projection http://uk.iacworld.org/what-are-the-sensations-of-astral-projection/
As said before, I did experience some of this before I knew the term (electrical sensory vibrations and sirens). I googled because I thought it could be a type of illness and was surprised to find these symptoms had been pushed to the top of google. If you look into the communities they go further describing silver cords, otherwordly beings ect. These parts are what I think are probably memes that the brain then fills in. I think sensory deprivation is an unacceptable state for the mind so it uses underlying evolutionary fill-ins as a grounding then moves on to common ideas and then the higher level cultural ones are at the far end of the process.
It might be possible that the soul does leave the body for other dimensions but the more pedestrian explanations should be explored first.
This description of the sensations looks a lot like the ones I feel when I'm having a WILD(Wake Induced Lucid Dream). I'm sure most of you know what a lucid dream is, otherwise look it up. A WILD means that you're staying conscious and aware all the way to the dreaming state.
A few times a year, as I fall asleep, I start feeling/hearing a vibration in my head and ears. It comes in waves and gets more intense every time until it is almost unbearable and rather scary. I used to open my eyes to stop it because of the fear, but one time I decided to ride the vibration all the way through. Once I reached the highest intensity, all of a sudden my body felt like it was doing back flips in zero gravity, faster and faster and there I was, in a dream and lucid about it, where everything looked as real as when I was awake. On a side note, even though it looks real, I'm unable to focus on small details, they get blurry and things change.
My point here, is that I don't think I'm astrally projecting, even though I can fly and even go to outer space, things aren't as real as they look, they don't resist scrutiny.
I believe the sensation/noise/vibration is nothing more than your sensory perception shutting down from your brain.
I've never seen a tunnel, but I've seen angels which were nothing more than the product of my imagination I believe.
NDEs weren't in the popular culture or the popular mind before the publication of Raymond Moody's Life after Life. So NDE in popular culture doesn't explain the many NDEs described by Moody.
You speak of all sorts of cultural elements, but NDEs' resemblance to those is rather rough, and a bit of a reach. ...in stark contrast to the uniformity of NDE reports.
Michael Ossipoff
As for biological explanations, maybe I should repeat what I recently said about that:
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Michael Ossipoff
Interesting, the way it is described is that you become lucid within the dream first and then move on to vibrations. I have plenty of lucid dreams and they are similar to how you describe, my phone is blurry, so are clocks ect and things often shift. I think this is what a lot of people are describing.
However there is a second (or third if you count normal dreaming as different from lucid) stage where if you then attempt to vibrate and leave your body within that lucid dream you move on elsewhere where things feel "more real than reality". It is a very stark difference in phenomenology between that and the lucid-dream.
Please note when I say second-stage or third I am meaning in reportable epistemic terms. I'm not committing to an ontological second-stage that is separated from normal sleep.
But I'm not making a statement of identity (like type-physicalism as it is currently called).
I am discerning between evolutionary and sociological explanations. One of these is psychologically innate whereas the other is not. So what I'm saying there is possibility for this to occur even within raised on a desert island scenarios. What I am saying with that is that we often think of ourselves having a first person verdical perception of the world in front of us, but also we can see ourselves in third person terms and there is a really obvious evolutionary advantage for being able to do that. Like imagining what could be at the top of a hill before you get there.
Though I disagree specific things like "silver cords and stronger OBE mythology" can exist in desert island scenarios.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
I honestly think ghosts floating above bodies has always been part of culture. Here's a really obvious one from Tom and Jerry: https://youtu.be/ofUzHtlil60?t=1m51s
You only have to also look at various mythology to see similar instances.
That's why I just finished saying this:
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Michael Ossipoff
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rK73CZKfWFE
Ooo! :worry: That's a statement of The One and Only Truth, if I ever saw one. :meh:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca5tZ2njgq4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfdrjWqQrZA&t=31s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WVrIRVcLi8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7C-24hOpvJ8
My simple take on the OP:
- A testimony can never serve as proof of a thing
- Millions of consistent testimonies can never serve as proof of a thing
What we CAN surmise however is that millions of consistent testimonies provide a significant basis on which to devote effort towards searching for actual evidence of something. But again, the search in itself is not proof of the existence of the thing.
In superficial terms:
If 1 million people believe unicorns exist and give testimony to have see one, this DOES NOT equate to any level of proof of the existence of unicorns. It might however be significant enough for someone to do more research to see if any real evidence can be ascertained.
There are 1000s, possibly millions of people who believe the Flat Earth model. They have no real evidence but they have a lot of theories and testimonies. Does this give credence to the FE model?
Nope, but it perhaps has enough of a following and enough worked out theories to explain just about everything to warrant some serious investigation, at least in some people's minds.
Evidential enquiry is a vital element in seeking out truth and fact. Testimony can help steer us towards the right search pattern, help us focus and zoom in on something, but testimony can never replace evidential enquiry.
If we are going to focus on your NDE's then we can accept that there are lots of consistent testimonies which would lead us to exert some kind of effort towards looking into them. We would never take testimonies as proof of anything, we would take them merely as a lead to focus the research. You can determine for yourself whether NDEs are real or not quite easily. You may remember the film from 1990 called Flatliners which was remade last year. A group of medically qualified people essentially kill one of themselves by stopping their heart and after a few minutes the others revive them with defibrillators and the rest. Sure it's risky and you'll only be kind of "dead" for a short period but it may be enough to taste any "beyond" or to stand on the threshold between worlds.
I guess at this point we reach the real nub of your opening gambit.
If YOU are actually interested in NDEs and whether there is anything beyond, anything after death, and if YOU specifically believe the many testimonies out there and view them as consistent, then are YOU going to have a go at killing yourself and having someone revive you??
If not, then it would appear that in truth, all those testimonies aren't really holding that much weight after all. There's clearly not enough of them to warrant real research and/or you're not that personally interested in finding out the truth.
In which case, what value really are the testimonies?
I agree, testimonial evidence is not a proof, but where did I say it was? On the other hand, it depends on how you're using the term proof, i.e., if you mean proof as in a deductive argument, again I agree, but if you're using the term loosely, as in strong evidence, then I disagree. That said, it's not difficult to construct a proof, which I will do at the end of these posts.
Proofs have limits, which I will discuss later.
Quoting Pilgrim
Again, I agree, but let me re-emphasize something, one doesn't need a proof to make the claim that one has knowledge of their conclusion. In other words, all we need to know is that the conclusion follows with a high degree of probability. We do it all the time. I'm not sure why so many amateur philosophers are under the false impression that we should only make knowledge claims if our conclusion follows with absolute necessity. If this was true, then I couldn't make the claim that I know algebra based on my grade of 95%, since there would be a 5% chance I could be wrong. I couldn't tell you that I know my brand new car will start, since there is a slight chance I could be wrong. Most of our knowledge claims follow with a high degree of certainty, rarely, do we use proofs in our everyday lives in terms of our knowledge claims. Moreover, one forgets that a proof is only one way of having knowledge.
I'm not going to address the rest of your post, I'm just going to give my argument again. The arguments in the following posts will be both inductive and deductive.
My claim is that there is sufficient testimonial evidence to reasonably conclude that consciousness survives the death of the body. In other words, I'm making the claim that I know the conclusion is true. And although I believe that I could make other claims based on the evidence, i.e., claims of knowledge, I'm limiting the scope of the conclusion. By limited, I mean I'm not trying to give evidence of a god, heaven, that we are eternal beings, or any other spiritual or religious idea; nor am I trying to give evidence of many of the other claims people are making while having such an experience. Although I do believe there is strong evidence to support other conclusions, and these conclusions have varying degrees of certainty, just as many of our everyday rational conclusions have varying degrees of certainty.
The first question is, what makes a strong inductive argument? As many of you know, the criteria for a good inductive argument is much different than the criteria of a good deductive argument. The criteria of a good inductive argument are as follows:
(1) number
(2) variety
(3) scope of the conclusion
(4) truth of the premises
(5) cogency
First, number. It seems rather obvious that if you have a greater number of testimonials that say X happened, then the stronger the argument. This does not mean that the conclusion relies solely on numbers, because numbers in themselves are not sufficient.
Second, variety. The greater the variety of cases cited the stronger the conclusion. Remember that when examining the conclusion of an inductive argument, the conclusion is either strong or weak, which is much different from a good deductive argument, where the conclusion follows with absolute necessity. The difference being what is probably or likely the case (inductive arguments), verses what necessarily follows (deductive arguments).
Third, scope of the conclusion. This has already been covered briefly in the opening paragraph. It means that the less the conclusion claims the stronger the argument. In other words, conclusions that are broad in scope are much harder to defend. A conclusion that is limited in scope is easier to defend.
Fourth, truth of the premises. Clearly this means that the premises must be true, which by the way, is the same criteria that makes a good deductive argument, i.e., a good deductive argument must be sound (soundness has to do with whether the deductive argument is valid, plus the premises must be true).
(a) Also, since we are dealing with testimonial evidence, in order to know if the testimonial evidence is true we need corroboration, i.e., we need an objective way to verify some of the testimonial evidence. This helps to establish the truth of the testimonial evidence, and since the evidence is testimonial evidence, it helps to establish the fourth criteria of a good inductive argument, viz., the truth of the premises.
(b) Another important factor in determining the truth of testimonial evidence is firsthand testimony, as opposed to hearsay or secondhand testimony. Firsthand testimony is stronger than hearsay or second-hand testimony, all things being equal.
(c) Consistency of the reports is another important criterion in terms of getting to the truth. However, testimonial evidence does not have to be perfectly consistent to be credible. When dealing with a large number of reports you will inevitably find some inconsistency. So, inconsistency itself is not enough to rule out the reports unless the inconsistency is widespread, and of such a number that it affects the quality and number of consistent reports. So although consistency is important, it must be looked at in terms of the overall picture.
Fifth is cogency. You rarely here this criteria, but it's very important in terms of effectiveness. Any argument's (deductive or inductive) effectiveness is going to be based on whether the person to whom the argument is given, knows the premises are true. For example, if I give the following argument:
The base of a souffle is a roux.
This salmon dish is a souffle.
Hence, the base of this salmon dish is a roux.
If you do not know what a souffle or a roux is, then you do not know if the premises are true, so how would you know if the conclusion is true. You may know that the argument is valid based on its form, but you would not know if the premises are true. Thus, you would not know if it is sound. For any argument to be effective, you have to know if the premises are true; and since knowledge varies from person to person, an arguments effectiveness is going to vary from person to person.
I will give the actual argument in my next post based on these criteria.
This is a restatement of the argument.
The following argument is based on the testimonial evidence of those who have experienced an NDE, and the conclusion follows with a high degree of probability. As such, one can claim to know the conclusion is true. This argument makes such a claim.
Each of the aforementioned criteria serve to strengthen the testimonial evidence. All of the criteria in the previous paragraphs work hand-in-hand to strengthen the conclusion, and these criteria serve to strengthen any claim to knowledge. If we have a large enough pool of evidence based on these five criteria, we can say with confidence that we know that consciousness survives the death of the body. In other words, we can say what is probably the case, but not what is necessarily the case.
Again, if there is a high degree of probability that these testimonials reflect an objective reality, then we can also say with confidence, that we know consciousness survives the death of the body. Thus, our knowledge is based on objective criteria, not on purely subjective claims.
We will now look at the testimonial evidence in terms of the five stated criteria, and how these testimonials support the conclusion.
First, what is the number of people who claim to have had an NDE? According to a 1992 Gallop poll about 5% of the population has experienced an NDE; and even if this poll is off by a little we are still talking about hundreds of millions of people. Thus, the number of accounts of NDEs is very high, much higher than what we would normally need to decide the veracity or accuracy of the testimonials, and much higher that what is normally needed to draw a proper conclusion.
Also, as was mentioned in the previous post, numbers in themselves are not enough, which is why the other criteria must be coupled with numbers.
The second criteria of good testimonial evidence is variety, i.e., do we have evidence from a variety of sources? The answer to this question is in the affirmative. NDEs have been reported in every culture from around the world, which by definition means that we are getting reports from different religious views, and different world views. NDEs also span every age group, from young children, to the middle-aged, and finally to the aged. The testimonial reports come from doctors, nurses, scientists, atheists, agnostics, literally from every imaginable educational level and background. NDEs occur in a variety of settings, including drowning, electrocution, while awake, while on the operating table, after a heart attack, etc. People have also reported having shared an NDE with someone else, although rarely. They have happened when there is no heartbeat, with the blood drained from the brain, and with no measurable brain activity. They have been reported to happen with a minimal amount of stress, i.e., without being near death. Finally, there have been many thousands more reporting these and similar events happening to those who have taken DMT (N,N-Dimethyltryptamine), which is an illegal schedule 1 drug. These DMT reports are also reports that are happening without being near death.
The third criteria is scope of the conclusion, and the scope of this conclusion is limited to consciousness surviving the body. The conclusion claims that we can know that consciousness survives bodily death.
The fourth criteria is truth of the premises. To know if the premises are true we need corroboration of the testimonial evidence, a high degree of consistency, and firsthand testimony. In all or most of these cases, it seems clear that we have all three. We have millions of accounts that can be corroborated by family members, friends, doctors, nurses, and hospice workers. Corroboration is important in establishing some objectivity to what is a very subjective experience. It lends credence to the accounts. One example of corroboration is given in Pam's NDE out of Atlanta, GA, which can be seen on Youtube.
Consistency is also important to the establishment of the truth of the premises. We have a high degree of consistency across a wide variety of reports. What are these consistent reports?
1) Seeing one's body from a third person perspective, i.e., from outside one's body, and hearing and seeing what's happening around their bodies.
2) Having intense feelings of being loved, and also intense feeling of peace.
3) Seeing a light or tunnel in the distance and feeling that one is being drawn to the light, or moving through the tunnel towards the light.
4) Seeing deceased loved ones.
5) Seeing beings of light that one may interpret as Jesus, Mary, Muhammad, an angel, or just a loving being that one may feel connected to.
6) Heightened sensory experiences, viz., feeling that one is having an ultra real experience, as opposed to a dream or a hallucination.
7) Communication that happens mind-to-mind, not verbally.
8) Seeing beautiful landscapes.
9) Seeing people who are getting ready or waiting to be born.
10) Having a life-review by a loving being who is not judgmental in any way, but simply showing you how important it is to love, and the importance of your actions on those you come in contact with.
11) Feeling as though one has returned home. This is also confirmed by people who were told they chose to come to Earth.
12) A feeling of oneness with everything, as though consciousness is at the bottom of everything.
13) Memories of who they really are return, as though they temporarily forgot who they were, and where they came from.
14) There are also reports of knowledge returning, and many questions being answered.
15) Understanding that ultimately we cannot be harmed.
16) That we are eternal beings simply entering into one of many realities.
These are just some of the reports from those who experienced an NDE, and some of these reports are confirmed by those who have taken DMT.
Another aid in establishing the truth of the testimonial evidence are firsthand accounts, as opposed to hearsay. There are literally thousands of firsthand accounts being reported by the International Association of Near Death Studies. And according to polling, there are hundreds of millions of firsthand accounts of NDEs.
The fifth criteria is cogency of the premises. Whether the argument is cogent for you depends on many factors, but many people have heard of near death experiences, so the concept is not an unfamiliar one. It is not going to be cogent for everyone, but with a little study and reading it can be cogent. It is not difficult to understand the concept. Although it is probably going to be difficult to understand how it is metaphysically possible. This argument is claiming that it is highly probable that consciousness survives the death of the body, and that the conclusion is very strong based on what makes for strong inductive arguments.
The further claim of this argument is that I know that I know the conclusion is true. Is it possible the conclusion is wrong? Of course it is possible, but we do not want to base a belief on what is possible, but on what is likely the case. All kinds of things are possible, but that does not mean we should believe them.
The following is a deductive proof.
So how would I construct a proof? It is very simple. The following is a deductive argument based on the evidence of the inductive argument.
Modus Ponens:
(1) If it is true that NDE reports are accurate, just as any veridical experience is, then consciousness survives the death of the body.
(2) It is true that NDE reports are accurate, just as any veridical experience is.
(3) Conclusion: Consciousness survives the death of the body.
As with any deductive argument all you have to do is dispute any premise, i.e., show that any premise is not true.
I believe the inductive argument is more apt to be believed, so it is a stronger argument in some ways.
It must also be pointed out that much of what we learn comes from the testimony of others, specifically from people in a position to know. There is a large amount of data that come from many fields of study that is passed down to us via testimony, and much of it cannot be doubted. Why? Because the vehicle for understanding our world and ourselves, including our language (concepts and words) is learned from others; and if we doubted or questioned most of it, we would be lost and reduced to silence. Our culture and our lives only succeed if most of what is conveyed to us is truthful. This is not to say that we should believe everything people say, only that we should keep in mind that there are criteria for ascertaining the reliability of testimony. For example, is the person in a position to know, that is, were they there? Were they firsthand observers? Did they study the correct materials? Second, is the person skilled in the appropriate subject matter? Third, is the person trustworthy or credible? Fourth, does the testimony harmonize with other established truths?
Based on what Dr. Tyson said, it seems as though he is not an expert on testimonial evidence, and does not seem to understand what makes reliable testimonial evidence. He made a comment about how our courts rely on this kind of testimony, and how it did not make him confident in our justice system. He may have said this tongue and cheek, nevertheless it does seem to make his point about how unreliable testimony is. He also said that if someone came to him and said that you should believe something based on what they saw, that is, it is true because they saw it, you should be highly suspect (paraphrasing). He is putting the worst possible face that you can put on testimonial evidence. So yes, in many instances what he is saying is quite true. Again, though he leaves out how it is that we discern good testimonial evidence from bad testimonial evidence.
He also made a comment that seems quite silly on its face, namely, that “…your senses are some of the worst data taking devices that exist.” This seems silly based on two things: First, our sense are generally reliable, if that was not so, then you would not be able to conduct science, period. Second, how do we observe experiments if not through our senses. I look through the microscope, I read the instruments, I smell the oder given off by a particular experiment, so, one’s senses are the very means that allow us to conduct the experiment/s. To be fair, it is not purely a sensory experience, it is sensory experiences coupled with other objective measuring devices. But our senses are extremely important in gathering the information, hopefully objective evidence, and not purely subjective observations.
There are many problems with some of Dr. Tyson’s comments about testimonial evidence and about sensory experiences, these are just some.
The following is a link to Dr. Tyson’s comments on Youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5qEBC7ZzVQ
This goes to show you that just because someone is knowledgeable in one field of study, that does not mean they are knowledgeable in other areas. Hence, the fallacy of appeal to authority.
The question we should ask first, is, what is a hallucination? Hallucinations are sensory perceptions that a person experiences without external stimulus. In other words, the experience is purely subjective and only exists in their mind, as opposed to objectively verified experiences. Hallucinations can occur in any sensory modality (hearing, seeing, taste, tactile, or smell). Hallucinations are not veridical, which is why they are called hallucinations. They are distortions of reality, and they are usually associated with illnesses like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.
What distinguishes veridical experiences from hallucinations? A veridical experience has an objective component that is shared with others, that is, we generally see (feel, taste, hear, and smell) the same things, we have shared external stimuli, which is what makes a normal sensory experience.
If NDEs are hallucinations, then why are so many people seeing the same things, at least generally? Moreover, if these experiences are not veridical, then why do so many doctors, nurses, family members, and friends verify the accuracy of the experience. In other words, those who are not having the experience corroborate the testimonial accuracy of the one’s having the NDE. This is not the case with hallucinations, that is, others, who are at the scene of the hallucination do not report that the hallucination is an account of objective reality. Hallucinations are not corroborated.
Many people who have an NDE describe their experience as hyper-real, that is, more real than real. When they compare their normal every day experiences to their NDE, their normal reality seems dreamlike by comparison. They describe their sensory experiences as expanded. For example, the ability to see what is happening in a more expanded field of vision, or seeing colors that they have never seen before. These are not the kind of reports that are associated with hallucinations, nor are they the reports of those whose brains are shutting down, or that lack oxygen, or that are the result of medication.
Why do so many people say that NDEs are hallucinations? There are many reasons. First, they are just giving their opinion. Second, these experiences (NDEs) do not fit their world view. Third, most or many people who have beliefs that are strictly materialistic are biased, and this is true no matter their education. Fourth, they have not studied NDEs, so they are just not sufficiently knowledgeable on the subject, again just giving their opinion based on what they think they know.
So, the objection that NDEs are hallucinations is just not a viable argument. Neither is it a viable argument that NDEs are random firings of a brain that is shutting down. Other criticisms of NDEs are equally lacking in evidence, such as, a lack of oxygen to the brain, delusions, dreams, or some other brain malfunction.
The most likely conclusion based on the evidence, is that these cases are not hallucinations, and that it is more likely than not, that they are veridical experiences.
There are publishing houses (Prometheus Press) and pop organisations (of which Shermer is a prominent member) whose whole raison d'etre is debunking anything remotely suggestive of psychic phenomena, including NDE's (and much more besides). Doesn't matter what you say, they will have to find a counter-argument, because it's an 'all or nothing' proposition. Either physicalism is completely true, or it fails entirely.
There's a classic statement of this point of view in Richard Lewontin's 1997 review of Carl Sagan's materialist polemic, The Demon-Haunted World:
In other words, from this perspective, science is the only possible valid form of knowledge, and unless you can force whatever you're studying into the procrustean bed required by scientific observation, then it either doesn't exist, or must be an hallucination.
The Jealous God dies hard, eh?
Quoting Pilgrim
In that case the justice system really is in trouble, ain't it.
I agree. Most of these kinds of arguments are self-sealing, that is, they won't let anything count as counter-evidence, and this is true with most religious people, so the problem is on both sides of the argument. Dogmatism on either side is the enemy of the truth. I'm not religious, so I try to look at the evidence from an unbiased position, at least as much as possible.
Testimonial evidence is nothing new, abstract, or even mystical, it is the common language of people the world over in communicating issues of relativism.
All language is metaphysical for language express thoughts relative to what is understood by individuals, or a society for recognition of accepted images, or stories presented to individuals or a society. But language is not mystical. Mystical language cannot be expressed, only conceptualized relatively metaphysical, for mystical language is beyond the reach of another's interpretation, or mass idealism.
Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
I don't think you've read my comments about testimonial evidence very closely. I've clearly distinguished between testimonial evidence that's hearsay, and testimonial evidence that has an objective basis, that is, corroborated or objectively verified in some way. I would suggest re-reading the argument.
What are discussions, or debates but differentiating opinions. Is not your topic an opinion?
No, it's not an opinion, it's a well-formed inductive argument, so the conclusion follows from the strength of the premises. I'm telling you what I know based on the evidence. I'm not simply giving an opinion based on what I happen to think is true.
What you have to do, if you disagree, is show where the argument fails. You said the testimonial evidence is hearsay, but that doesn't address my argument which addresses this very issue. I take great pains to make the point that it isn't hearsay, and why it is not hearsay or secondhand testimony. All you did is make a pronouncement that it is hearsay without showing how my argument relies on hearsay. Not all testimonial evidence is hearsay.
I have laid out the premises of my argument very clearly, so attack the specific premises.
A deductive or Inductive argument, whether claimed to be what one knows or expressing what they have experience, has no strength when the premise of their knowing is not exposed. And irrespective of what you state to be your inductive argument it is reasoning, and reasoning flat line is conceptual. And not only that, no man has ever found anything which would allow him to open a door into his invisible foundation, which cannot be verified by his sense mind. Why? Because men climb the backs, and ride the thought wave of other men, and advance those thoughts according to their human indoctrination, teachings, and beliefs, and intellect. What you state you know does not belong to you.
Now you keep saying I have not presented a a specific premise of argument, but when I tell you and you do not refute it, then your lack of response says you have ran into a dead end, and you have no other recourse by to say I have not presented myself specific in context. Oh well!
I'm baffled by this statement. Where did I say testimonial evidence is not testimonial evidence? Unless you think that all testimonial evidence is hearsay by definition, but that's just not the case. Again you're not reading or understanding the argument.
I will be posting only the first chapter in this thread, starting with the preface. The members of The Philosophy Forum will get the first look at the book. What I start posting in here will be the unedited pages. Once I have the edited pages, I will repost the chapter. I have been wanting to do this book for years, but keep putting it off, and I am not getting any younger, so I better get going.
Posting in this thread has helped me make the argument stronger, so I appreciate those of you who have given good arguments against my argument (as stated on the 1st and 14th page). Also, since I am in the middle of writing the book, any suggestions to make it better would be appreciated. I want to thank @fdrake for his comments, because some of the issues he raised has helped me to think about the testimonial evidence in other ways.
Thanks,
Sam
P.S. I am still trying to decide on a title. One possible title is...
Does Consciousness Survive Death?
A Philosopher's Look at the Evidence
Preface
The goal of this book is to look at near death experiences (NDEs) in terms of the testimonial evidence. Some of the questions are, starting with the primary question of this book: Does consciousness survive the death of the body? Do NDEs give us enough testimonial evidence to warrant belief in an afterlife? Will we see our loved one’s again? Should we be afraid of death? These are some of the questions that mankind has grappled with for thousands of years; and although the conclusion of the main argument is about whether consciousness survives death, there are many other implications and conclusions that can be inferred from the evidence.
We will not only examine the testimonial evidence, but we will examine it as a measure of what we can claim to know about surviving death. Can we say with confidence that there is enough evidence to make the claim that, “I know my existence extends beyond the scope of my physical body.” So, part of the thrust of this book is an epistemological journey, namely, one of knowledge. This is what will separate this book from others that have been written on the subject of NDEs, namely, what can we know?
The subject of what we can claim to know, especially in terms of testimonial evidence, is highly controversial. Especially since testimonial evidence is seen by many in the scientific community as not reliable enough to establish the conclusion we are seeking. In fact, according to some, testimonial evidence is generally not seen as a reliable source for grounding many of our beliefs. While this is true in many instances, we will try to disabuse you of the notion that testimonial evidence is always weak. In fact, testimonial evidence can be very strong under the right conditions.
The analysis of the testimony will not be from a religious perspective, which is to say, that we will not look at the evidence in terms of any religious point of view or doctrine.
The book will be divided into three parts. Part 1 is a common-sense view of NDEs, which will present the facts and arguments in a relatively easy to understand format. Part 2 will be about what we can speculate about, that is, a portion of the speculations will have some evidentiary support, while other speculations will have little to no evidentiary support. This will be the fun part of the book. Sometimes it is fun just to speculate what might or might not be the case based on little to no evidence.
For those of you who want a more in-depth analysis of some of the subject matter, there will be a third section added at the end of the book. This third section will defend, for example, the epistemological view taken in the first chapter.
Finally, after looking at the evidence we will make a bold claim about what we can know, if anything, about surviving death. So, part of the goal of the first section of this book is to establish knowledge, not to express an opinion, nor to express an article of faith. We want to know! Can we?
The weight you put on purely testimonial evidence should be inversely proportional to the practical importance of accepting the testimony as true and making decisions about your own and others' lives, well-being, etc. based on it.
So, for example, someone at work tells you, "Man, yesterday I got pulled over for going 80 mph in a 65 zone . . ." and all you have to go by is their claim, then it's fine to believe them, since there's really nothing at stake in believing them--no practical upshot, as you already know that it's possible to get pulled over for being 15 mph over a limit, etc., nothing that's very important re making decisions about your life or anyone else's life, etc.
However, if someone at work tells you, "Bill just kicked me hard in the shin and told me he was going to kill my family," and you're the boss, then you'd better have something other than the guy's testimony to support the claim before you make decisions about Bill's continued employment at the company. For example, if he supposedly kicked the accuser hard in the shin, their should be some sign of that on the accuser's shin. We shouldn't just go by testimony in cases where anything important is at stake.
Of course, and if you read my argument carefully, you would know that I deal with this question. I deal with it by pointing our what makes testimonial evidence strong, as opposed to weak.
Re your strength comments, in my view, multiple reports, etc. only matter if we have evidence that the persons couldn't possibly have heard others' reports, and we're only going to have that in a strictly controlled setting.
Physical evidence is necessary.
I'm not only or even primarily thinking about this in terms of consciousness surviving the body. It applies to everything in my view (that is, it should), including the plethora of sexual assault claims we've been getting recently. No physical, non-testimonial evidence=nothing should happen to anyone in my view.
This is obviously not true, and can be demonstrated with even a cursory examination of the subject of testimonial evidence. I don't need physical evidence, although it helps, to make a reasonable conclusion, we do it all the time. Not only do we do it all the time, but it's central to how we form many justified beliefs. For example, if I have ten people who make the claim that you shot someone at 10th and Main street in Pittsburgh, PA at 2 pm on Monday October 3, 2018, then after a careful examination of the testimony (as presented in my argument on page 14), I can reasonably conclude that you in fact shot someone. Obviously there are things that can strengthen the argument, that's the nature of these kinds of inductive arguments.
On the other hand, if I had one person making the claim, and that person's memory was incomplete, or it couldn't be corroborated, or there was no other evidence, then you would be correct. However, in the cases I'm citing there is a ton of testimonial evidence. It is corroborated, and it can be objectively verified in many of the cases.
If we couldn't generally trust the testimony of people, much of what we know would be invalidated. In fact, much of what we know is based on the testimony of others. There is a huge amount of information about science, history, philosophy, etc., passed to us through testimony. It would be irrational to doubt most of it. Why? Because our very understanding of each other, the world around us, our society and culture is based on the concepts and words we learn from others. Without such testimony we would be lost and reduced to silence, period, end of story. What we learn from our culture and from others relies on the truthfulness of most of what is conveyed to us.
First, were not talking about something true or false. We're giving opinions about what sorts of epistemic grounds justify actions, beliefs, etc. There are no (objective) facts about justification; there are merely opinions about it. I gave my opinion. Physical evidence is necessary in my opinion to accept others' testimony about empirical matters as true re making decisions about your own and others' lives, well-being, etc. based on it. Again, as I stated at the start, assent to testimony, when it's only testimony, in my view, should be inversely proportional to the practical importance of believing a claim. Quoting Sam26So, in my view, you can only reasonably conclude that I shot someone if you have physical evidence that I shot somene. 10,000 people giving you testimony, all agreeing with each other, etc. would be irrelevant. You need physical evidence that I shot someone, in my opinion, to make decisions that have a big practical effect on folks' lives, as would be the case in concluding that I shot someone.Quoting Sam26Again, belief solely on testimony should be inversely proportional to the practical effects of that belief. For anything important, we should rely on physical evidence (for empirical claims), and on logical soundness (for non-empirical claims).
This is the difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying, viz., I'm not giving opinions, you are. Opinions in my book aren't worth much. How to correctly reason to a conclusion is not a matter of opinion. Besides if you're just presenting an opinion, why are you so adamant that you are correct. One opinion, as far as I can determine, is as good as another.
That I'm giving an opinion wouldn't at all imply that I feel that all opinions are just as worthwhile. I have the opinion that I do because it's the way that I feel about it. I'm not going to equally feel every way about it. You certainly don't think that anyone equally has every opinion of the tastiness of anchovies simply because it's only a matter of personal taste. (As if you'd think that anyone simultaneously thinks all of "They're yummy," " They're awful," "They're my favorite food," "They make me nauseous," etc. --you'd have to have no conception of what opinions even are to think that something being an opinion would suggest that anyone considers all opinions to equally apply.)
It would be your burden to establish that there is indeed a fact re what objectively justifies anything.
Was there any conscious experience during the time that they were declared medically dead? That's impossible to know. What it seemed like to the subject isn't necessarily what was the case. But even if there had been, it's important to keep in mind that there's no reason to expect the medical criteria to be akin to some sort of absolute ontological fact rather than being a practical matter from a particular third-person observational perspective.
You seem to be confusing the concept of subjective and objective. It's true that my personal tastes about anchovies is subjective, and it's based on a subjective opinion. My personal tastes are mind-dependent. So if I say I like anchovies based on my subjective opinion, that in itself doesn't hold much weight in terms of other subjective opinions on anchovies. However, I'm not talking about subjective feelings, which don't amount to a hill of beans in terms of having objective knowledge or asserting an objective truth. My feelings about the Earth having one moon has nothing to do with the objective knowledge or truth about the Earth having one moon. It's an objective fact that the Earth has one moon, and your feelings about that fact, have nothing to do with whether the fact obtains.
That said, what I was asserting in my previous posts, is that correct reasoning is not based on your feelings either, it's not like giving you my feelings about anchovies. Take a test in calculus based on your subjective feelings or opinions and see how far that gets you. There are objective rules and principles that guide correct reasoning (logic), so it's not a matter of subjective opinion like you're claiming. This is also true of mathematics, we're not talking about subjective feelings when it comes to doing the problem correctly. You either follow the rules, or you get it wrong.
I don't know how much you've been following my writings on epistemology, but I'm not new to this subject. I've been studying the subject for many years, and I've given a lot of thought to it. That in itself doesn't make me right, but it does lend weight to what I'm saying. I'm not just pulling these thoughts out of midair.
Nope, not confusing anything. Whether the Earth has one moon is an objective fact. Whether x justifies the claim that P is not an objective fact. And no knowledge is objective. (Propositional) Knowledge is justifed true belief. Well, least controversial there is that beliefs are mind-dependent. Beliefs do not obtain mind-independently.
I'm an anti-realist on logic and mathematics (I'm basically a combo of a subjectivist and social constructivist, as I am with language, and I see logic and mathematics as different sorts of languages). The social conventions involved with test-taking do not determine the ontological nature of logic and mathematics.
I'm an anti-realist on all abstracts, by the way. There are no real (a la objective) abstract existents.
I didn't say anything about you being new to the topic. I'm not either. Not being new to the topic, presumably you're familiar with the idea that not everyone is going to agree with you, even on some of the most fundamental stuff. And presumably you're not going to assume that folks disagreeing with you are doing so because they're not familiar with the field, or because they're "confused" or anything like that.
You agree that the Earth having one moon is an objective fact. Okay, we agree on this. However, you also say in your next statement that "[w]hether x justifies the claim that P is not an objective fact." I would say it depends on what you mean. I'm assuming you mean that in logic when using a deductive or an inductive arguments, the method used in logic to justify an argument is not objective fact. In other words modus ponens is not an objective fact of logic.
I still think that part of the problem is in our views of subjective and objective. I would say that something that is subjective is mind dependent, so I like orange juice is dependent on what I feel or think about oranges. So the fact is dependent on me in a significant way, the fact would cease to be a fact if later in life my tastes changed. This is not only an example of a subjective fact, but also contingent fact. Of course all subjective facts are contingent. One could also say that it is a contingent truth, since the truth of the statement depends on me. It must also be pointed out that statements are said to be true or false, that is, epistemology (knowledge as justified true belief) is something that occurs in language (language-games). Facts, whether subjective or objective either obtain in reality or not. We use statements to reflect facts, so if I say, "Sam likes oranges," then I'm saying that it is true of that statement, that it reflects a particular fact, viz., that I like oranges. So there is a correspondence between this particular statement and the fact in reality (whether subjective or objective). The statement mirrors, reflects, or corresponds with reality. Note also, that the fact associated with the statement, "I like oranges," is also an abstract fact, or an abstract truth, it does not reflect a physical object like the statement, "The Earth has one moon."
Objective facts are mind-independent, that is, the fact is not dependent on me, but is separate from how I think about it. No matter how I feel or think about the fact that the Earth has one moon, the fact will still be a fact even if I cease to exist, and even if there are no minds to apprehend the fact. This is quite different from a subjective fact, which is dependent on me. If I cease to exist there would be no present case of Sam liking oranges. It would only be a fact of the past. The statement that the Earth has one moon is a statement that reflects an objective truth. Again, though, when talking about truth, we are talking about statements. When talking about facts we are talking about things, whether physical or abstract, that exist in reality, apart from how we talk about them. There is much more that can be said about abstract ideas and minds in relation to reality, but I will refrain for now.
There are facts about language too, so facts can reference things in or about language, and this is also part of reality. However, it is also true that language is mind-dependent, so how can there be objective facts of language? Is not part of the definition of subjective, mind-dependent? Yes. However, not everything that is mind-dependent is subjective. There are things that minds do that reflect facts in the world. Thus, minds create language, and as such language is an objective fact of the world.
There is something interesting here that makes me think of Wittgenstein's private language argument. Wittgenstein points out a problem with trying to create a private language, and the problem is associated with rule-following. Rule-following is not something I learn in isolation, that is, I learn to follow rules in a linguistic culture, so it necessarily has a social component. Note that we can objectively observe whether someone is following a rule, based on the rules of a particular language-game. Thus, correct language usage is an objective part of the reality of our lives. This is true even though minds are a necessary component of language.
Now let us consider the statement, "...x justifies the claim that P is not an objective fact." Logic is a language, and logic is based on the rules that define how we justify arguments. The rules that define how this is done is not based on any one person's idea of how or what it means to justify an argument (it is not subjectively defined). The rules of logic are objective, that is, mind-independent in that they are part of the reality of language use. We can objectively observe whether or not you are following the rules of logic.
There are two aspects of mind-dependence that we have to be clear about. It is true that language is mind-dependent, but this does not take away from the fact that language, although created by minds, has an objective reality that is independent of any one mind. The creation of cars is dependent on minds, but once the car is created, it is an objective fact of reality, and the fact is independent of a mind/s. There is a lot more to this idea, and it is not simple to understand. Unfortunately I will not be able to work out all the details of this in a few short paragraphs.
My point though, is that it is an objective fact of logic, that arguments are justified in particular ways. Thus, I would dispute the idea that "...x justifies the claim that P is not an objective fact." And while it is true that propositions reflect truth, it is also true that the way propositions are used, can reflect objective facts about their use in language.
I cannot believe that you think there is no knowledge that is objective knowledge. This is a misunderstanding of knowledge, and the meaning of knowledge. There are tons of examples of objective knowledge. I do not feel I have to even defend this, because it is so obviously false, for more reasons than I can count.
Of course beliefs are mind-dependent, but so what, that does not mean that beliefs cannot reflect or mirror objective reality. Stated beliefs do occur independently of minds, they occur in language, which although created by minds, has an objective component as part of the reality of language. There are beliefs that are nonlinguistic, but this is outside our epistemological language-games.
Where in the world did you get this epistemology from? It would takes months of writing to unravel so many confusions. It did make me think of some new ideas though.
Okay, so:
Quoting Sam26
Me too.
Now, Quoting Sam26
Okay, if the rules of logic are mind-independent, where, mind-independently, do they obtain? That is, where are they found in the mind-independent world?
Ya, I turned into Michael on that last post.
Hi, I think your approach to the idea of life after death is decent. However, I was wondering, if you avoid the religious/spiritual point of view, what will you say about consciousness that makes it something that should survive after death. In other words, why should it?
Secondly, how is consciousness in relation to our human lives, that is, does it have the capacity to act beyond our physical domain while we're still alive or does it have to wait until the body dies?
If you're observing people in observing language, then how is language not mind-dependent? Are you saying something only about non-mental aspects of language, like sounds that people make or marks they make on paper, or actions they make in response to sounds or marks, or?
Good question. One of the reasons to conclude that consciousness survives death is that one of the common elements of NDEs is that people see their deceased mother and father, and deceased friends. So the continuity of our consciousness seems to remain intact after we die, and there are other reasons too, but this is one of the common reasons.
Your second question is more difficult to answer. My opinion, based on some evidence, is that we do have contact with the other side, and the other side is familiar with what's going on here. I also think that we are much higher beings than we are in this human form. This reality is a dumbed down version of reality, almost like an illusion of the mind, and there is good evidence for this.
I'm talking about the act of communicating with concepts using language. The creation of language is mind-dependent, but the actions as we use language with one another is mind-independent, it's part of the reality of language use. For example, you can watch someone play chess and know objectively that they are familiar with the rules. You can see them move the pieces and plan their moves. Part of the objective nature of language is how people use the concepts, are they using the concepts according to the rules of language.
No. Your personal tastes are dependent on your physical/emotional reaction to consuming anchovies. There's an objective fact of the matter regarding your gustatory tastes.
Quoting Sam26
No it's not. Your personal tastes are not dependent on anyone's opinion. If you've actually consumed anchovies, you don't have an opinion on whether or not you like them - you either do or you don't.
When you watch someone play chess, you can say that they are following the rules as you understand them (where your understanding is subjective, and your deducing of this, your knowing of this, is also subjective, not objective), but you are only surmising that they even have any mental content and are not a robot or something like that.
The objective stuff is the observable motions they're making. Actions aren't mind-independent in that they involve mentality a la intentionality and so forth.
With language, the only objective part is the sounds we make, the marks we make, and the motions we make in response to sounds and marks.
Rules per se, where they count as rules semantically (and indeed the semantic aspect of anything) are not objective.
And you can't actually see anyone plan their moves. We say that as a manner of speaking, where we take certain motions to be indicative of that person having mental content and by analogy with knowledge of ourselves we assume that they're doing something like we're doing when we look the same way, but we can't actually observe anyone else having mentality.
There's nothing at all objective, or literally shareable, about concepts.
Which makes it subjective. It's mental content, something mental that your brain is doing. Emotions period are mental, they're a brain function. Mentality is physical. It's something our brains do. Mentality is a subset of brain functionality from a first-person perspective. "Subjective" does not mean or imply "not physical," a fortiori because there is nothing extant that's not physical .
Quoting ChrisH
Liking or not liking something is your opinion, and it's subjective--it's a brain phenomenon, a mental phenomenon, what your brain is like in some respects from a first-person perspective.
So, you're demanding an objective basis to believe that there are indeed objective judgements, having already declared that there's not really any such thing as an objective basis. Talk about a stacked deck!
I didn't say anything even remotely resembling "There are no objective bases for anything."
Quoting Terrapin Station
Perhaps it's a distinction that I'm missing?
So I stated my view. If one has a different view, one would support the view, and if that's persuasive, I'd change my view.
It would be like me saying, "Phlogiston is the cause of combustion." If you have a different view, you'd state it and support it, and if I thought the support was sound and I found it persuasive, I'd change my view.
And I took issue with it. And you said 'hey that's not my view'. So I quoted you, to show that it actually was. Your move.
It's my view that justifications are not objective. It's not my view that there are no objective bases to anything. If someone wants to argue an objective basis for believing something different than I believe, I'm not at all saying that I'd reject that out of hand because I feel there are no objective bases to anything. You characterized my position that way, but I didn't say anything even remotely resembling that. That I gave my view that justifications aren't objective doesn't at all imply that I think they're are no objective bases to anything.
Maybe you were thinking that "justification" simply denotes "basis for something"? That's not how I define "justification." A justification is whatever is taken to be necessary and sufficient support of a claim (well, or of actions, too, if we want to broaden it in that way). What I'm saying is that determining what counts as necessary and sufficient support of a claim is something that only people do. Additionally, counting something as necessary and sufficient support for a claim is something that only people do. It's not something that the mind-independent world does. That doesn't amount to me thinking that there are no objective bases for anything.
Quoting Terrapin Station No. It's an objective fact.
You appear to be confusing two different claims:
1) "I like anchovies." (Objective factual claim)
2) "Anchovies are delicious." (Subjective opinion)
Some of what I said isn't clear enough, so I'll have to re-write some of it.
Are your reactions mental phenomena?
"I like anchovies" isn't about a mental phenomenon?
"Mental phenomena" are brain states. Brain states are objective aspects of our world. Claims about brain states are objective claims.
Did you understand the distinction I was making in my previous post? Claims about one's own brain states are objective claims.
I'm using the word "subjective" to refer to the standard designation, where it's referring to mental phenomena, or mind-dependent phenomena. Yes, those are brain states. By definition, those brain states are subjective. "Objective" refers to the complement of mental phenomena--everything else, all of the physical stuff aside from mental brain states.
So claims about mental phenomena, by definition, are about something subjective, not objective.
What definition of subjective/objective were you using? If mental states are objective in your view, what phenomena is subjective?
It's claims (propositions), not "phenomena", that are subjective or objective. I gave an example of the distinction between subjective and objective claims in my last but one post.
Here it is again:Quoting ChrisH
How about giving a definition rather than an example?
An opinion is an evaluative claim.
"I like anchovies" is a factual claim about ones own brain state (it's not an evaluative claim). It's not the expression of an opinion.
"Anchovies are delicious", on the other hand, is an evaluative claim about anchovies and is an opinion.
Did you notice above where I asked "how about giving a definition" of subjective/objective?
We can move on to other things (like what opinions are) after that.
You just asked for a definition (you didn't say "of subjective/objective").
In any event, if a claim expresses an opinion (an estimation of the quality or worth of someone or something) it's subjective.
If it's a factual claim (non-evaluative) it's objective (it's definitively true or false).
I assumed you were aware of this.
Quoting Terrapin Station
You gave examples instead.
So I then wrote:
Quoting Terrapin Station
Okay, so "subjective" only refers to "opinions" in your view. And "I like anchovies" isn't an opinion, because presumably it's not a view or judgment formed about something?
That's right. It's a straightforward factual claim.
So if liking something isn't a judgment about it in your view, I have to wonder what the heck definition you're using of "judgment," and re something like "Anchovies are delicious," it's not a fact that the person who stated that thinks that anchovies are delicious?
You're clearly struggling with the distinction between the following:
"I like anchovies"
and
"Anchovies are delicious"
One is a factual statement about the speaker, the other is a judgment of ("an estimation of the quality or worth of") anchovies.
Sure, so help me out. "I like" seems like an estimation of the quality or worth of something. "I like" versus "I dislike" seems to be a judgment.
http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1976-12272-001
https://books.google.com/books?id=yCZxDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT50&lpg=PT50&dq=like+dislike+judgment&source=bl&ots=EFx_PIc1k1&sig=5-VM41XGbxUfokZ2adk64fM1zQQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjiqo_QkLveAhVP3FMKHVqcBcgQ6AEwDnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=like%20dislike%20judgment&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=4TJPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA519&lpg=PA519&dq=like+dislike+judgment&source=bl&ots=G433gqm--2&sig=mmxDyX1XKir4VFzAegwGaE8ekS0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjPnOqGkbveAhVQy1MKHXL3BgU4ChDoATADegQICBAB#v=onepage&q=like%20dislike%20judgment&f=false
It seems to me that they're facts about judgments the speaker is making. It's a fact that the speaker has made a judgment that he/she likes anchovies. Just like it's a fact that the speaker has made a judgment that anchovies are delicious.
They're not "facts", they're statements which make either judgmental or factual claims.
So it's not a fact that the speaker has made a judgment that he/she likes anchovies?
It's a fact that the speaker has made two statements (everything is a 'fact' in this trivial sense). Only one is an evaluative claim (judgment).
"I like x" is a judgment.
Quoting Terrapin Station
No. "X is likeable" is a judgment.
"I like x" is a factual claim. Either I do (sincere) or I don't (I'm lying)
Every judgment is a factual claim in that sense. Either you do feel however you said (that something is delicious for example) or you do not.
I can feel brain cells dying during this discussion by the way.
Because you're saying something crazy/something that makes no sense. I don't know if you're trolling or if you're really that confused.
As if anyone wrote anything resembling "Those are the same claim."
It seemed to be implied by this:Quoting Terrapin Station
"I like anchovies" isn't a judgment any more than "I am 6 feet tall" is a judgment. They're both straightforward factual claims which are (in principle) objectively verifiable.
This is a red herring. As I said, the veracity could (in principle) be determined (given a sufficiently advanced method of brain scanning).
The point being that both claims are about objective features of the universe. The fact that one may, to all intents and purposes, be practically impossible to verify is irrelevant.
Right. Then you get a 'sufficiently advanced method of brain scanning' - but some experts cast doubt on their veracity. In the end, the experts are deadlocked. So you have a dispute between brain-scanning experts about whether the subject is lying about his dislike for anchovies. What is 'objectively the case' then?
"I like anchovies" is a judgment because it is the person's verdict, assessment or evaluation of anchovies; they're telling us how they feel about anchovies. It tells us, after consideration/deliberation, what their mental disposition is towards anchovies. And yes, as long as they're being truthful, it's a fact that they like anchovies.
"I am 6 feet tall" isn't a judgment because it's not a verdict, assessment or evaluation of anything. It's not telling us how they feel about anything. It requires no consideration or deliberation. We don't know if the person likes or dislikes being six feet tall. We have no idea what their mental disposition is towards it. Nevertheless, it's also a fact.
"Anchovies are delicious" is a judgment because it is the person's verdict, assessment or evaluation of anchovies; they're telling us how they feel about anchovies. It tells us, after consideration/deliberation, what their mental disposition is towards anchovies. And again with this, as long as they're being truthful, it's a fact that they feel that anchovies are delicious.
With all judgements, the veracity could (in principle) be determined (given a sufficiently advanced method of brain scanning). That is, the fact that the person in question really does feel the way that they reported in their judgment.
All judgments are features of the universe.
They're not objective features in the standard definition of objective, because judgments are something that we do mentally, and conventionally, "objective" denotes "mind-independent." Things that we do mentally are not mind-independent .
Liking anchovies, finding them delicious, are mental events.
It's a fact that individuals have the mental events that they do. Those mental events are features of the universe.
"I like X" is a claim about the speaker. It is not a claim about 'X'. The speaker's attitudes are a feature of the universe and can (in principle) be verified.
"X is delicious" is a claim about X. No examination of 'X' will ever reveal the truth or otherwise of the claim.
It's a claim about how the speaker feels about x. That is indeed telling us something about the speaker. But it's a judgment--how one feels about something is a judgment. I spelled this out above.
"Anchovies are delicious," likewise, is a claim about the speaker. It just as much tells us how they feel about anchovies as "I like anchovies." In fact, in this case, it's basically the same thing as "I like anchovies," just in different words (and possibly it's a stronger version of it).
Quoting Terrapin StationNo it isn't.
If it were, it would make no sense for anyone to disagree with a claim of "X is delicious". According to you, they'd be denying that the speaker actually did find X to be delicious!
All I'm doing with the terms is picking out whether something is a mental phenomenon or not. If it's something that one's brain is doing via the subset of brain activity that's mentality, then it's a mental phenomenon. I'm applying one term to that.
If it's a phenomenon that occurs outside of the subset of brain activity that's mentality, then it's not a mental phenomenon. I'm applying another term to that.
Maybe you don't agree with that distinction, or maybe you don't agree that "I like anchovies" is a mental phenomenon, but that's the ONLY thing I'm doing with the terms in question. If you're doing something else with the terms, that's fine, but then it's just a matter of us doing different things with the same terms.
Quoting ChrisH
Yes it is. There are two things that people are doing when they disagree.
One, they're merely telling the other person that they do not feel the same way. That's one sort of disagreement over comments like this.
Two, they have a mistaken belief that any sort of evaluation, aesthetic value, gustatory value, etc. can occur in the world outside of individual minds (indlviduals having specific brain activity). And then based on that mistaken belief, they might believe that they're disagreeing about the properties in the non-mental things in question. But it's a mistaken belief. Those sorts of properties are NOT in non-mental items. Those sorts of qualities are a report of how one feels about the item in question, and that's all they are. Just as "like/dislike" is a report of how one feels about the item in question.
If you insist that claims such as "X is delicious" are synonymous with "I like X" then you have to accept that such statements are objective.
The problem is that you've defined 'subjective' (in this context) out of existence.
So, can "I like x" be verified non-mentally?
It would depend on just what we're referring to by verifying it, right?
Re this:
Quoting ChrisH
There are senses in which those statements are not something mental, but that's pretty limited. An example is if we're talking about me writing "I like x" on a board like this. The marks on the screen that you see are not mental--they're pixels that have been activated on a monitor, etc., and that's not a mental phenomenon.
Or, "I like x" might be me saying something on a recording. In that case, if we were talking about a cassette or reel (for a reel-to-reel machine), we'd be talking about magnetic patterns on the tape. And those magnetic patterns are not mental phenomena.
Or we could just be talking about the sounds I'm making with my mouth, the soundwaves in the air, etc. if I'm telling you in person. Again, the sounds I'm making with my mouth and the soundwaves in the air are not mental phenomena.
But once we start talking about them as something with any meaning--which is sometimes a crietion in some folks' minds to qualify as a "statement,", we're talking strictly about mental phenomena.
So again, it depends on just how we're referring to it being a statement. When we say that "statements are sentences with meanings . . ." (that wouldn't be the whole definition, but it could be the start), then statements are necessarily mental-only, because meaning is something that only occurs in minds (that is, via brains functioning in particular ways).
It's an identity, not (just) a correlation. Mental states are identical to brain states. I don't believe that the idea of nonphysical existents is even coherent. I'm a physicalist.
Again, re verifiability, it just depends on exactly what we're referring to as a verification of something whether verifications are necessarily mental or not. I'd say that verifications would be mental, because I don't think that "verification" makes much sense, or resembles the common usage of that term, if we're not talking about something with meaning attached.
But maybe you just have in mind machines processing information and being in particular subsequent states, and you'd count that as a verification. Insofar as you might, that would be non-mental, sure.
I'm afraid you lose me here.
All I'm saying is that "I like X" is true or false independent of anyone else's opinion or feelings. This is what it means to be objective. Whether or not the veracity of the claim is actually verifiable in practice is irrelevant.
If that's how you're using the term "objective" okay, but that's not how I'm using it, and it's not a standard way to use that term. But you can use the term in an unusual way.
The standard way to use the term is to refer to things that are independent of anyone's mind (and not just their opinions or feelings, but their minds period). The standard usage is not things that are dependent on one person's mind, but independent of other persons' minds.
But per "ChrisH 'objective'," and ignoring my theory of truth, because that would be a huge other tangent, then sure, "I like x" is "ChrisH 'objective'."
I disagree. It's perfectly standard.Quoting Terrapin Station
The standard way is to say that the truth of a claim is independent of anyone's opinions/beliefs/feelings. This is sometimes interpreted, mistakenly in my view, that any claim relating to minds/attitudes must be 'subjective'. When it's quite clear that there are objective facts about minds/attitudes.
Here's a definition from Merriam-Webster, for example:
"of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind"
That doesn't say "independent of individual thought/the mind but for one person."
It also doesn't at all specify truth-value or claims--because it's an ontological term, not an epistemic term.
But subjective/objective don't actually have anything to do with agreement, or at least there's no strong correlation there. We can all disagree about something objective--we could all have different views about just what's really going on when it comes to quantum physics phenomena, for example. And we can all agree about something subjective--it would be possible for there to be some food, or musical artist, or whatever that every single person likes (at least among the many who experience it).
That's not the standard sense relevant to philosophy, but we can ignore that for a moment and pretend that it is.
So let's go with that definition for a moment. What does it have to do with "I like anchovies" or the idea of something being mind-dependent for one person but no one else? You're not claiming that "I like anchovies" has anything to do with perception or that it's not about personal feelings, etc., are you?
Well, there isn't a fact regardless of what the person who likes anchovies can know, is there?
Aside from that, though, sure. It's a fact that people think, feel, etc. whatever they do. "Fact" isn't mutually exclusive from "subjective." A subjective fact is a fact of someone's mental content--that they think, feel, etc. whatever they do. ("Subjective" there describes what sort of fact it is/where it occurs--it's a fact of a mind or minds.)
If you take this view then you disqualify the posibility of making any objective claim about the existence of mental states/attitudes.
What's the mistake you mentioned earlier?
And I would say that no claims are objective, by the way. And that's the case even if you're using this definition: "expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations." It's not possible to make a claim, or to think anything, that's not subject to personal interpretations, a fortiori because you can't make (or read, or understand) a claim with no meaning associated with it, and meaning is a type of personal interpretation.
I often say that people can't be objective.
Re my comments above, it's important to understand the distinction between making a claim about something objective and whether the claim itself has the property of being objective. That's like this distinction: I could make a claim like, "Holy cow--that was the loudest band I've ever seen in concert!" But when I make that claim--let's say I'm making it in person--I could whisper it. It's a claim about loudness, but it's not itself a loud claim. The claim doesn't have the property of being loud (not unless I shout it), but it's about something loud.
Conventionally,
Cheers.
What intrigued me was the very weird way you were using the terms, so that "I like anchovies" is objective in your view, it's an objective fact, and its not a judgment, but "anchovies are delicious" is not objective in your view, it's subjective, and it is a judgment.
Do you mean on message boards, or are you talking about writing from philosophers a la professional journals, books written by professors, etc.?
Sure. I won't ask you to give any examples, because it's difficult enough to search for something particular in a thread we were just participating in. ;-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNbdUEqDB-k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osfIY4B3y1U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rFW2lc3344
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJic9adBquY
I would imagine that people in this kind of state will generally 'see' what occurs in terms of their cultural background; a Hindu might say 'Krishna is the key'.
I've been fascinated with the similarities between NDEs and DMT.
Re: testimonial evidence in the manifold way you described it as a valid measure of an event:
For two years and more-every day, every hour-millions of people asserted that Trump colluded with the Russians. They just knew it was political and ideological gospel;
-Reporters and journalists nationwide swore it was true, reproducing one article after another to that titillating effect;
-Social media sounded the conspiratorial alarm, writ large;
-Academics, legal types, and pundits harangued ad
nauseam about the juicy matter;
-Forums and blogs regurgitated the notion;
-Congress, presidential candidates, the FBI, the CIA and peripheral security agencies joined hands in the cri de coeur;
-Cable news outfits made the charge their raisin d’etre;
The “testimonial evidence” overwhelmingly grounded the allegation and accusation. Report after report after report assured us of the misdeed. Indeed, the “truth” of collusion could not have been less than an apodictic certainty.
Well, oops.
Great thread! I studied NDE's awhile back and this is a great refresher. (And I read through some of the responses but not all.) What was the consensus on EM field theories of consciousness?
The following is why I believe the inductive argument is strong:
My claim is that there is sufficient testimonial evidence to reasonably conclude that consciousness survives the death of the body. In other words, I'm making the claim that I know the conclusion is true. And although I believe that I could make other claims based on the evidence, i.e., claims of knowledge, I'm limiting the scope of the conclusion. By limited, I mean I'm not trying to give evidence of a god, heaven, that we are eternal beings, or any other spiritual or religious idea; nor am I trying to give evidence of many of the other claims people are making while having such an experience. Although I do believe there is strong evidence to support other conclusions, and these conclusions have varying degrees of certainty, just as many of our everyday rational conclusions have varying degrees of certainty.
The first question is, what makes a strong inductive argument? As many of you know, the criteria for a good inductive argument is much different than the criteria of a good deductive argument. The criteria of a good inductive argument are as follows:
(1) number
(2) variety
(3) scope of the conclusion
(4) truth of the premises
(5) cogency
First, number. It seems rather obvious that if you have a greater number of testimonials that say X happened, then the stronger the argument. This does not mean that the conclusion relies solely on numbers, because numbers in themselves are not sufficient.
Second, variety. The greater the variety of cases cited the stronger the conclusion. Remember that when examining the conclusion of an inductive argument, the conclusion is either strong or weak, which is much different from a good deductive argument, where the conclusion follows with absolute necessity. The difference being what is probably or likely the case (inductive arguments), verses what necessarily follows (deductive arguments).
Third, scope of the conclusion. This has already been covered briefly in the opening paragraph. It means that the less the conclusion claims the stronger the argument. In other words, conclusions that are broad in scope are much harder to defend. A conclusion that is limited in scope is easier to defend.
Fourth, truth of the premises. Clearly this means that the premises must be true, which by the way, is the same criteria that makes a good deductive argument, i.e., a good deductive argument must be sound (soundness has to do with whether the deductive argument is valid, plus the premises must be true).
(a) Also, since we are dealing with testimonial evidence, in order to know if the testimonial evidence is true we need corroboration, i.e., we need an objective way to verify some of the testimonial evidence. This helps to establish the truth of the testimonial evidence, and since the evidence is testimonial evidence, it helps to establish the fourth criteria of a good inductive argument, viz., the truth of the premises.
(b) Another important factor in determining the truth of testimonial evidence is firsthand testimony, as opposed to hearsay or secondhand testimony. Firsthand testimony is stronger than hearsay or second-hand testimony, all things being equal.
(c) Consistency of the reports is another important criterion in terms of getting to the truth. However, testimonial evidence does not have to be perfectly consistent to be credible. When dealing with a large number of reports you will inevitably find some inconsistency. So, inconsistency itself is not enough to rule out the reports unless the inconsistency is widespread, and of such a number that it affects the quality and number of consistent reports. So although consistency is important, it must be looked at in terms of the overall picture.
Fifth is cogency. You rarely here this criteria, but it's very important in terms of effectiveness. Any argument's (deductive or inductive) effectiveness is going to be based on whether the person to whom the argument is given, knows the premises are true. For example, if I give the following argument:
The base of a souffle is a roux.
This salmon dish is a souffle.
Hence, the base of this salmon dish is a roux (Dr. Byron Bitar).
If you do not know what a souffle or a roux is, then you do not know if the premises are true, so how would you know if the conclusion is true. You may know that the argument is valid based on its form, but you would not know if the premises are true. Thus, you would not know if it is sound. For any argument to be effective, you have to know if the premises are true; and since knowledge varies from person to person, an arguments effectiveness is going to vary from person to person.
You put great stock in these premises being true to ground your particular conclusion, which no one disputes as a measure for being logically consistent, but I don’t see how this specific NDE truth is being affirmed except by some subjective assertions, en masse.
Or are your simply stating that the (NDE) assertions per se are true and that they represent the premises? I hope not, since there are, e.g., an infinite number of Santa Claus -is-coming-at-Christmas assertions, and well...
It appears to me that you’re running into the fallacy of begging the question. Exactly what is the objective independent evidence that the premises presented are true? Please don’t give me more testimonial evidence.
As I demonstrated by my prior collusion analogy, testimonial evidence gets you to point x in a conclusion, but not to the truth of the conclusion.
What I challenged you on, rather, was how your noted criteria sufficiently ground your conclusion (I.e., NDE truth,) not whether that criteria enhance an inductive argument.
To be clear, one legal standard, with which you’re likely familiar, is preponderance of the evidence (p/o/e); the standard boils down to whether it is more likely than not that x testimony is sufficient to establish y. Your argument parallels the p/o/e standard.
However, neither that legal standard nor your species of testimonial evidence obtains the truth of a conclusion. Both approaches just make the argument(s) a little more convincing.
Sam I want to applaud you for the work you've done, as I feel like it was very well-thought-out. As we all know the conclusion from inductive reasoning relates to probability theories, which are used quite regularly in physical science.
I'm compelled to get back into it...but I remember in my earlier studies being persuaded by the consistent testimony, from the subjective experiences.
My question relates to corroberation. I'm sorry if you've already gone over this, but how were these experiences corroberated? For instance, was there any testimony from third persons who may have felt some sort of ' phenomenon ' happening during that other person's NDE?
Thank you kindly.
The argument is not like a deductive argument in that it establishes the truth of the conclusion, i.e., if the premises are true, then the conclusion follows necessarily. Inductive arguments are either strong or weak based on the evidence; and based on the aforementioned criteria, the argument is very strong. Moreover, there is more than enough evidence (to say the least) for a reasonable person to infer the conclusion.
The testimonials were corroborated by doctors, nurses, family members, friends, and others who were at the scene. The person having the OBE usually can describe the people, conversations, and instruments used in their revival - this is later verified by the people who were there. A good example of this is Pam's NDE out of Atlanta, GA, which can be seen on Youtube. There are just too many of these accounts to rule them out as hallucinations.
This is how any piece of testimony is validated, i.e., how accurate is their testimony when compared with others who were there?
This is a show that has no reservations about positing the wildest paranormal/supernatural/etc. theories they can broach.
Ya, that's the common view, viz, that consciousness is a function of the brain. My view is that consciousness is what unites everything, it's what connects all of us. It's the underlying mechanism of reality itself.
Right, and that's my view, too. It was refreshing to see it just assumed on a show like that, because it gets so much opposition here.
For according to standard type-physicalism, NDEs are by definition types of mental events that correspond to types of biological functioning and so NDEs cannot imply anything transcendent of biological functioning, even if paranormal claims were verifiable.
Conversely, if one's conceptualization of personal identity is sufficiently fuzzy , then immortality is assured by definition, even if NDEs fail to produce verifiable paranormal results.
Because a large percentage of NDEs and pre-death or death-bed visions are interactions with the deceased. Therefore, one can conclude based not only on this, but given all the other points that have been made, that we are much more than simply this body (the brain, etc).
The amount of information we learn from others is massive, and much of it is conveyed by testimony. Moreover, we don't doubt most of it, because if we did, we would be reduced to silence. Even our concepts and words are learned from others. Our culture would fall apart if we doubted the truthfulness of all such testimony.
However, this doesn't mean that everything that is conveyed to us is true. Thus, the need to question testimonial evidence. For example, is the person in a position to know? Were they there? Second, is the person skilled in the area in question? Third, is the person trustworthy? Fourth, does the testimony harmonize with other known truths?
I don't follow. All that exists are verbal reports and their proximal neurological correlates that are roughly clustered, as is expected by the shared structure of human brains that learn and interact within a shared culture.
These observations tend to reinforce the scientific usefulness of the Cartesian perspective, that mental states should be considered local, discrete and internal to each and every human brain.
Certainly there are drawbacks and oversights of the standard Cartesian view, but I don't seem them as being intimately connected to the phenomena of NDEs.
In trying to revisit some theories relative to EM fields of consciousness :
"My hypothesis is that consciousness is the experience of information, from the inside. There is a postulate in physics that information is neither created or destroyed – the conservation of information ‘law’. It is however just a postulate, nobody has ever proved it. But, if true, it would suggest that awareness (associated with that information) – in some form – might survive death." JJ McFadden
There have been some new studies (2007) in physics that I'm looking at now, which I'll report back later on to see if there are some other clues... .
In the meantime, we all know William James. He had this feeling that the brain filters our access to a vast consciousness that extends beyond the limits of neural activity.
I guess in both instances, one could analogize to the computer 'cloud server' idea... .
It's a very interesting topic, but this thread isn't about theories of consciousness. I don't think we have enough information to come up with a good theory. It's fun to speculate, and I do some of that when talking about NDEs. I don't consider my argument to be speculation, but there are some areas of NDEs where we can speculate because there isn't enough evidence to make a good inference.
No worries, I felt like there was another missing component to the discussion that could be helpful. Thus here was my reasoning below:
-NDE's have been experienced by people
-NDE's have been corroborated by third persons
-NDE's themselves are conscious, subconscious and unconscious phenomena, that happens to people
-people have consciousness
- the nature of consciousness is largely unexplained
-EM fields of consciousness is a concept that tries to explain some human phenomenon (and possibly NDE's)
-the NDE phenomenon involves conscious states of Being outside the body
-EM fields of consciousness partly involves theoretical storage of all consciousness states
-physical theories posit that energy [one's conscious energy] storage include vector space, black holes, or some other unexplained space of possible storage
So with that said, if the NDE individual has these out of body experiences, yet are presumed dead, how are they able to use their minds to think? Where does their stream of consciousness flow? (How or where does the conscious energy come from without blood supply?)
Is it a supercomputer that has storage capability?
These are Metaphysical questions that may not be answerable now, but biophysics/science is providing some new clues of analogous benefit.
It is also the case that people of different religions see different religious figures during NDE’s, an indication that the phenomenon occurs within the mind, not without.
OBE’s are easily induced by drugs. The fact that there are receptor sites in the brain for such artificially produced chemicals means that there are naturally produced chemical in the brain that, under certain circumstances (the stress of an trauma or an accident, for example), can induce any or all of the experiences typically associated with an NDE or OBE. They are then nothing more than wild trips induced by the trauma of almost dying. Lack of oxygen also produces increased activity though disinhibition—mental modes that give rise to consciousness.
What about the experience of a tunnel in an NDE? Well, the visual cortex is on the back of the brain where information from the retina is processed. Lack of oxygen, plus drugs generated, can interfere with the normal rate of firing by nerve cells in this area. When this occurs ‘stripes’ of neuronal activity move across the visual cortex, which is interpreted by the brain as concentric rings or spirals. These spirals may be ‘seen’ as a tunnel.
We normally only see clearly only at about the size of a deck of cards held at arm’s length (Try looking just a little away and the clarity goes way down)—this is the center of the tunnel which is caused by neuronal stripes. I am not really dying to go down the tunnel…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkTh6wNlYao&t=995s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hz_4FGdWVF8
As some of you know I'm not religious, but I do think there is evidence or good reasons to suppose that consciousness survives death (I go further than Sam Parnia). Also, some of you know that my two areas of interest are epistemology and near death experiences (NDEs), which I've been studying for many years. My views on epistemology inform my views on NDEs; and one of the most common mistakes made when I hear people (educated or not) talk about NDEs is the place or priority they give to scientific evidence (sometimes justified, sometimes not) as opposed to other kinds of evidence. The mistaken idea is that if science hasn't answered the question, then we don't have knowledge of the question at hand. This is the mistake that Kuhn makes all the time, and Parnia is making when he talks about the evidence for consciousness surviving death.
It only takes a cursory look at the way we use the word know to understand that knowledge is arrived at in at least several ways besides experimentation. I surely don't need science to inform me that there is an apple tree in my back yard, or that the orange juice I'm currently drinking is sweet. I also don't need some experiment to inform me that I know algebra, or that German and French are languages. Correct reasoning (logic) also informs what I claim to know, i.e. inductive and deductive reasoning. Finally, one of the most pervasive ways of gaining knowledge is through testimonial evidence, i.e., much of what we know is handed down to us from scientists, historians, mathematicians, and physicists, to name a few, so, there are at several ways of attaining knowledge apart from science. If this is true, and I believe it is, then appealing to science all the time for our fund of knowledge is a fallacy. I'm not saying that science doesn't have an important place in what we claim to know, I'm simply saying that science is not the end-all and be-all of what we claim to know.
Much of what Sam Parnia claims about consciousness relies on the testimonial evidence of NDEers. If this is true, then I believe that he's either ignoring some of the testimonial evidence, or he doesn't think it's strong enough for some reason he hasn't enumerated. For example, there is plenty of testimonial evidence that supports the idea that consciousness survives for much longer than he concludes. Many people who have NDEs report seeing their deceased relatives, which by definition means that they have survived, in many cases, for many decades after their bodies have decomposed. Moreover, there is other firsthand testimonial evidence that suggests we've been around for many lifetimes.
The following was taken from page 14 of this thread. I want to reiterate what makes a strong inductive argument based on testimonial evidence. Or, one could ask, what makes strong testimonial evidence?
As many of you know, the criteria for a good inductive (in this case an inductive argument based on testimonial evidence) argument is much different than the criteria of a good deductive argument. The criteria of a good inductive argument are as follows:
(1) number
(2) variety
(3) scope of the conclusion
(4) truth of the premises
(5) cogency
First, number. It seems rather obvious that if you have a greater number of testimonials that say X happened, then the stronger the argument. This does not mean that the conclusion relies solely on numbers, because numbers in themselves are not sufficient.
Second, variety. The greater the variety of cases cited the stronger the conclusion. When examining the conclusion of an inductive argument the conclusion is either strong or weak, which is much different from a good deductive argument, where the conclusion follows with absolute necessity. The difference being what is probably or likely the case (inductive arguments), verses what necessarily follows (deductive arguments).
Third, scope of the conclusion. This has already been covered briefly in the opening paragraph. It means that the less the conclusion claims the stronger the argument. In other words, conclusions that are broad in scope are more difficult to defend. A conclusion that is limited in scope is easier to defend.
Fourth, truth of the premises. Clearly this means that the premises must be true, which by the way, is the same criteria that makes a good deductive argument, i.e., a good deductive argument must be sound (soundness means the argument is valid and the premises are true).
(a) Also, since we are dealing with testimonial evidence, in order to know if the testimonial evidence is true we need corroboration, i.e., we need an objective way to verify some of the testimonial evidence. This helps to establish the truth of the testimonial evidence, and since the evidence is testimonial evidence, it helps to establish the fourth criteria of a good inductive argument, viz., the truth of the premises.
(b) Another important factor in determining the truth of testimonial evidence is firsthand testimony, as opposed to hearsay or second-hand testimony. Firsthand testimony is stronger than hearsay or second-hand testimony, all things being equal.
(c) Consistency of the reports is another important criterion in terms of getting to the truth. However, testimonial evidence does not have to be perfectly consistent to be credible. When dealing with a large number of reports you will inevitably find some inconsistency. So, inconsistency itself is not enough to rule out the reports unless the inconsistency is widespread, and of such a number that it affects the quality and number of consistent reports. So, although consistency is important, it must be looked at in terms of the overall picture.
Fifth is cogency. You rarely hear this criteria, but it's very important in terms of effectiveness. Any argument's (deductive or inductive) effectiveness is going to be based on whether the person to whom the argument is given, knows the premises are true. For example, if I give the following argument:
The base of a souffle is a roux.
This salmon dish is a souffle.
Hence, the base of this salmon dish is a roux.
If you do not know what a souffle or a roux is, then you do not know if the premises are true, so how would you know if the conclusion is true. You may know that the argument is valid based on its form, but you would not know if the premises are true. Thus, you would not know if it is sound. For any argument to be effective, you have to know if the premises are true; and since knowledge varies from person to person, an arguments effectiveness is going to vary from person to person.
Finally, the main point of this post is to point out that we can know many things apart from what science tells us, and I think this is where Kuhn and Parnia go astray.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uDA4RgHolw&t=1996s
But what about ontics? If the meaning of a proper noun, say "Elvis Presley", is considered to be a family-resemblance of uses across partially over-lapping language-games, then the question as to whether Elvis Presley is dead or alive doesn't have a single definite answer. In Karoake, as far as i'm concerned, if it looks like Elvis and sounds like Elvis, then it's Elvis.
Our understanding of the "soul" of a person has much in common with our attribution of sense to their name, which is retained after the expiration of a referent bearing that name. If an anti-realist concerning other-minds ontologically prioritises sense over reference, he will answer questions concerning immortality very differently to the realist, for these opposing view-points use different and incompatible criteria for personal identity.
Realists also vehemently disagree with one another. One argues that "Elvis" is token-identical with the current state of a corpse buried at Graceland and that evidence for Elvis's reincarnation on earth or in heaven is therefore logically impossible. The other says "Elvis" is type-identical with a class of potential physical objects, and that reincarnation is therefore physically possible but unlikely. The presentist argues "Elvis" is meaningless because nothing bears the name in his present vicinity etc.
When you argue for the possibility of evidence of consciousness surviving the body, what is your understanding of a proper-name?
Roughly, there has to be some consistency of memory and experience to be able to say that that person is Elvis. Memory and one's experiences create a kind of narrative that follows that person throughout his or her life. I'm of the opinion that identity goes beyond the physical body. Others believe that one's identity is necessarily tied to the physical body, or the brain. I would tie a proper name to that which has the memories and/or experiences of the one we call or called Elvis. When we talk about Elvis we're talking about the one who had the experiences associated with a particular life. Whether one's identity goes on after death is the question at hand. I believe the evidence is strong, given my argument, that one's consciousness or identity survives.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QYBhzi67NY
Thank you Sam...I've listened to some other stuff from Greyson, and he is very articulate and well rounded. He talks about theoretical physics, classic philosophy, etc., and he tries to speak to the problems of consciousness from a world view.
Through his studies and data concerning NDE's, he believes that consciousness exists out there in some form as an informational data base. Meaning, he believes the mind is a receptor that filters EM fields of information/metaphysical information.
As an analogy, and I realize the circular argument of whether mathematics is out-there discovered from time to time by a receptive mind, or a purely invented human construct, but where are you with the mind-body/materialist problem?
1.there have been zero alien encounters
2. Testimonial evidence is not a reliable means of establishing that an anomolous type of event can occur.
Hey Sam, I failed to mention that his notion of out-there relates to his studies, where brain activity flatten out, yet people apparently still had brain function/experiences... ?
I'm definitely in the camp with those who believe that the mind is independent of the body. I believe the argument I gave above is strong, given all the data, and taken as a whole. I too believe the brain acts as a receptor, but I also believe we exist as persons apart from our bodies.
It's true that there is a great deal of testimonial evidence regarding alien encounters and UFOs, but if you read my argument above it's not just based on numbers, there are other criteria that go into making a good inductive argument based on testimonial evidence. However, the best testimonial evidence about a UFO is from Fmr. Commander Dave Fravor, take a look at it, it's interesting. I don't know what it means, but it is interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GS2ZKw3G9-w&t=2s
Can't convince someone who isn't willing to listen, that's for sure. Maybe ponder some more on your belief that "the probability of an advanced, intelligent civilization within a navigable distance, who were motivated to make the long journey, is extremely low". How would you know what is a long journey to a civilization more advanced than yours? How would you know that the speed of light is a limit to them?
Believing something is impossible, and something really being impossible, are two different things. I'm sure that at one time people believed it impossible for man to fly, and how did that turn out? I'd be careful about claiming things are impossible, there are things that fall into this category, but most of the time when people say something is impossible, all that is really meant is that it's improbable. Moreover, there are different degrees of possibility.
I'm not interested in turning this thread into an argument about whether aliens can travel great distances, but scientists have been talking about the possibility of bending space, which would allow us to travel great distances. It's difficult to say what a civilization thousands of years ahead of us could do. You probably couldn't even imagine the technological advances such a civilization would have.
Testimonial evidence certainly could overturn something that people believe to be impossible. However, it would have to be strong testimonial evidence, based on the outline I gave above.
Willingness to listen isn't the issue. The issue is epistemelogical:
1. Proposition PAL (Probability of Aliens is very Low): per established science, the probability of aliens travelling to earth is vanishingly low (e.g. speed of light is an absolute limit -per general relativity; life-permitting exoplanets are rare; abiogenesis is less than certain on apparent life-permitting planets; evolution of intelligence is a matter of chance - there's no reason to think it inevitable; likelihood of intelligent life having the technology, motivation, resources, and longevity to travel enormous distances is very low).
2. Many people have claimed to have encounted aliens, and those that have been thoroughly investigated have been debunked.
3. The debunked cases show there to be a psychological phenomenon of believing they've contacted aliens. Call it AES (Alien Encounter Syndrome)
4. All testimonial evidence is consistent with (explainable as) AES (i.e. none has been shown to be actual aliens)
5. Therefore there is no epistemic basis to defeat
belief in PAL (see #1).
The issue is entirely epistemological: do reports of OBEs constitute adequate evidence to justify belief that OBEs are actual?
A dualist has the background belief that minds are immaterial. For them, there's no obvious obstacle to accepting that a mind might detach from the body.
A materialist has the background belief that the mind is identical to the brain or at least is a product of brain function so that there is an inextricable link. The mere claim that an OBE has occurred will not undercut this belief.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_qBIw7qyHU&t=773s
It could be they wanted to see themselves in third person as that would be the reasonable assumption if your feeling/consciessness was separate from your brain. Basically i'm saying there belief that they saw something is imagined because they "went crazy" and thought they experienced something they didn't experience because of "stress". This is a possibility.
I believe in the supernatural because i can't explain "feeling" beyond the possibility that the whole universe feels and we are just a subset.
While i agree with your OP and your method, the conclusion i've come to at this point in my life is there are numerous variables (and alternative theories of why something....) and finding an exact solution isn't impossible but very hard. Perhaps you can find a book or write a book about this subject. I probably wouldn't read the book because i'm already convinced. If you wrote the book and just posted parts of the book, i would read the parts.
That said, i have sympathy with the sentiments expressed by beliefs in "life after death"; not in the sense of it constituting an empirically contingent and testable scientific hypothesis, but because the opposite notion of 'eternal oblivion' is equally nonsensical.
Most everything you believe has come from the testimony of others, if you doubted most of it you would be reduced to silence. Professors, books, language, science was given to you by others, you probably had little to do with creating the information yourself.
The argument is logical (inductive argument), don't give your opinions, give reasons why the argument fails.
Good point. Math and all rational thought is reduced (or deduced?) to basic definitions. Definitions build on definitions. Intuitive thought can't be proven (even if correct) until it is proven with defintions. Everything can be quantified whether it should or shouldn't be quantified.
thats actually pretty cool. You actually couldn't prove it whether that is true or false. The only way to prove that was false is if all "intelligent" life forms on earth were wiped out... wait it is possible to prove it is unprovable or it is possible to prove it is true, but you can't prove it is false because if all life forms were wiped out, no one could confirm. lol.
Quoting Sam26
I'm specifically referring to the trustworthiness and reliability of the verbal reports of experimental subjects in psychological experiments where they are tasked with giving self-reports, possibly including explanations for their own behaviour. A testimony of a subject taken at face value can be terribly misleading when it comes to understanding the actual underlying proximal and distal causes of the subject's verbal behaviour, for there is no reliable mapping between a person's use of sentences and their psychological state, and people don't possess introspective access to the causes of their own behaviour.
I agree with this, but my argument doesn't rely solely on these kinds of reports, if it did I would say the argument is very weak. Note that the inductive argument as I've put forth has a variety of criteria that make the testimonial evidence strong. I think people forget that not only can testimonial evidence be very weak, it can also be very strong.
[b]Does Consciousness Survive Death?
(Do We Survive Death?)[/b]
The primary goal of this book is to establish whether we can have knowledge of the question at hand, as opposed to an opinion, speculation, or a faith based religious belief. The two subjects of this book include the subject of epistemology and the subject of near death experiences (NDEs). The subject of epistemology, or the subject of knowledge, has been a subject that mankind has grappled with for millennia, at least as far back as Plato. Not only can epistemology be traced back to Plato, but one of the oldest accounts of an NDE can also be traced back to Plato. It is the account of Er, which is about a soldier who awoke on his funeral pyre, and his account of the afterlife. The point is that the subject matter we are investigating is nothing new. What is new, is the amount of data we have on NDEs, that is, we have access to millions of firsthand NDE testimonials. A 1992 Gallup poll found that 5% of Americans have had an NDE, that is roughly 16 million people in the United States. This does not include the millions of people from around the world, which would make the numbers in the hundreds of millions. Having access to so many testimonials can help us determine if the testimonials have any merit, namely, it will help us determine if the testimonial evidence is strong or weak. We are not striving for knowledge in absolute terms, no more than we need to strive for absolute certainty in most of our knowledge claims. Most of what we claim to know, is known with a high degree of probability; as such, we will strive for the same kind of certainty as we examine the testimonial evidence of NDEs.
Given that the two primary subjects of this paper are epistemology and NDEs, and since epistemology plays such a foundational role in what this book will claim, it will be examined first. For many of you the subject of epistemology will be something new, or something you heard of in some philosophical discussion that seemed far removed from anything practical or useful. In fact, this thinking is probably how most people feel about philosophy in general, that is, people discussing esoteric subjects that have no practical application, and in many cases this is true. However, in this book we will endeavor to show just how practical the subject of epistemology can be in terms of what we can claim to know.
So, the first question is, what does it mean to have knowledge? We will be using one of the oldest definitions of knowledge, namely, justified true belief. This definition is used in a variety of ways, or in a variety of contexts. First, we can come to know that something is the case through sensory experience. For example, I know the orange juice is sweet because I tasted it, or I know there is a palm tree in my backyard because I see it. Second, knowledge is acquired through linguistic training. For example, I know that the object on my desk is a cup, because that is what we mean by cup in English. So, within any language there are correct and incorrect uses of words. Third, much of what we learn and claim to know, is based on testimony. People who are experts in their field tell us that such-and-such is the case. For example, this happens through books, the classroom, multimedia applications, etc. The fourth way of gaining knowledge is through the use of logic, that is, deductive and inductive reasoning. A deductive argument is one in which the conclusion follows with absolute necessity. They are commonly referred to as deductive proofs. In such an argument, if the premises are true, then the conclusion follows necessarily. The second type of logical argument is an inductive argument, an inductive argument is one in which the conclusion follows with a degree of probability, which is why inductive arguments are often referred to as either strong or weak. These are just some of the ways in which we come to have knowledge.
In this book we will be concerned with three of the above four ways of attaining knowledge, namely, sensory experience, testimony, and logic. All NDEs are experienced through subjective sensory experiences; and, if others are seeing the same things, then this lends credence and objectivity to the experience. This is also the case in our everyday experiences, that is, we share the same general sensory experiences; and we conclude, at least generally, that something is veridical if others are seeing or experiencing the same things.
So, how do sensory experience, testimony, and logic play a role in determining whether we can claim to have knowledge about whether consciousness survives the death of the body? The claim of this book, is that in the same way these three ways of justifying a belief inform our everyday knowledge claims, they can also be used to justify other kinds of claims, more specifically, the claims of NDEers.
People who have NDEs claim that what they are experiencing is veridical, that is, what they see, feel, hear, etc., is just as real, in fact, more real, than their everyday experiences. This is the first part of the argument, people’s subjective experiences, which by itself is generally not enough for us to conclude anything, especially that consciousness survives death. One must keep in mind (and this is crucial) that this argument, which is supposed to give us knowledge, combines three ways of justifying a belief (sensory experiences, testimony, and logic). These three combined, form the foundation of the argument, and we will claim in the end that they give us a good justification to conclude that consciousness survives death.
Part of the argument that relies on sensory experiences is dependent on the fact that generally we can trust our sensory experiences. If this was not the case, the argument would fail to support the conclusion. In fact, much of what we believe about our everyday lives would also fall apart, including science, which relies heavily on our sensory experiences, and draw conclusions based on sensory observations.
Hahaha... the mysteries of living this life are not only worth experiencing, they are alive and well!!
We should have no fears...
:)
Post #2
The second part of the argument is based on testimonial evidence, that is, what makes testimonial evidence strong. This is an important part of the argument, because generally testimonial evidence is looked at rather suspiciously, and rightly so. We will examine the criteria that makes testimonial evidence strong. The criteria that makes testimonial reports strong overlaps with the criteria that makes good inductive arguments. For example, a good inductive argument is based on the following criteria.
(1) number
(2) variety
(3) scope of the conclusion
(4) truth of the premises
(5) cogency
The number of cases cited to support the argument, directly supports its strength. Compare, one person testifying to seeing Joe shoot Mary, as opposed to ten people seeing Joe shoot Mary. It’s obvious that the more people you have that witness an event, the stronger the evidence to support the conclusion.
There are literally millions of accounts of NDEs in the United States and around the world. Hence, in terms of numbers the argument is well positioned, but numbers are not enough, which brings us to the next yardstick used to measure good or strong testimonial evidence, variety.
Variety has to do with the cases cited, the greater the variety, the stronger the evidence, and thus, the stronger the conclusion. If we again consider a murder case (Joe shooting Mary). If we have an eyewitness account, or even multiple witness accounts, the evidence is stronger if it is from a variety of sources. For example, not only eyewitness accounts from different sources and positions, but fingerprints, DNA samples, the victim’s blood found on the accused’s clothing, etc., this variety of supporting evidence gives strength to the argument that Joe is guilty of murder.
In NDE cases, unlike the murder case above, we do not have physical evidence, so we will be relying on a variety of other factors. For example, NDEs occurring from the points of view of those in car crashes, operations, heart attacks, cancer patients, suicide, etc. Variety also includes NDEs from different age groups, different cultures, different times in history, and although rare, people sharing the same NDE. The variety in the accounts of those who testify to their NDE is another point of strength.
The third criterion is the scope of the conclusion. The broader the scope of your conclusion, the more difficult it is to prove. The narrower the scope of the conclusion, the easier it is to prove. In other words, the more you claim in your conclusion, the more evidence you will need to support the claim/s. Therefore, a conclusion that is narrower in scope, and more conservative, is easier to defend.
The fourth criterion is the truth of the premises. In other words, the truth of the statements used to support your argument. Obviously if your supporting statements are false, then the conclusion may be false, at least it is more likely that the conclusion is (inductively speaking) false.
Finally, cogency, which means the statements used to support the argument (premises), are known to be true. This is often overlooked in arguments. It seems obvious that if the person or persons to whom the argument is given do not know the premises are true, then no matter how good your argument, it will ultimately fail.
So, we will be using the three methods described earlier (sensory experience, testimony, and logic) to infer that consciousness survives death. Which brings us to the value of inference, namely, the value of drawing a conclusion based on our evidence. Moreover, in terms of epistemology, if you can infer or prove (inductively prove) that your conclusion follows, then you know your conclusion follows. In this case, we are trying to inductively prove that consciousness survives death. What does it mean to inductively prove your conclusion? It means that the inductive argument is strong. How strong depends on the criteria given earlier. Again, it should be stressed that the criteria must be taken as a whole, not isolated from each other. In isolation the criteria diminish the strength of the argument.
As stated earlier, the definition for knowledge used in this book is justified true belief. We have already spoken about the ways in which we justify a belief (linguistic training, sensory experience, testimony, logic, etc), but now we want to say something about the nature of truth. The general definition for truth used in this book is the following: A statement is generally true if it corresponds with reality. Thus, if I make the statement that the Earth has one moon, the statement either matches reality or it does not. If it does not, then obviously the statement is false, if it does match reality, then the statement is true. Einstein claimed that space was curved or warped, and that this could be demonstrated as starlight passed by the sun. Thus, Einstein made a prediction about what could be seen by observation, namely, what is happening in reality as starlight passed by the gravitation pull of the Sun. Einstein’s prediction was confirmed in 1919 by Sir Arthur Eddington’s experiments. The point is that Einstein’s claim turned out to be true based on what was happening in reality, so Einstein’s statements corresponded with reality (our definition of truth).
Sam!
Good job. I certainly agree with your thoughts about inductive reasoning there. However, as a critique, in your subsequent paragraph you mention the nature of truth and reality. The constructs of subjectivity, objectivity, and abstract truth's come to mind here. And you used Einstein as an example. All that said, because we are essentially referring to Metaphysics and Phenomenology in the NDE experience, how have you reconciled those?
For example, there are mathematical truth's that are essentially a metaphysical language (of truth) that underlies or is the essence of physical existence or properties of existence (a structural beam can be created/described through a mathematical formula). And so those truth's are abstract yet real, and are also a part of our reality.
Then there are Objective and Subjective truth's. Though not always mutually exclusive, Subjective truth's are truth's someone cares about, while Objective truth's nobody cares about (Love versus 2 +2 =4 respectively).
Then there are also paradoxical truth's like the nature of time and change, and consciousness itself, when describing the nature of reality.
And so, I would suggest adding a chapter to your book that could speak to other relevant phenomena that we experience as a kind of truth from our reality. And how that kind of truth results in a belief system that can be analogized to the NDE experience.
When you said in the last paragraph, "A statement is generally true if it corresponds with reality", that is what made me think of the forgoing. Also, maybe attack part of the issue with experience relating to causation and/or determinism, associated with reality. Otherwise, the reader might be left with an incomplete understanding of truth's and reality (not that that is a comprehensive analysis).
I don't have a problem incorporating these ideas into the nature of reality. I define subjectivity and objectivity a bit different from how you define them. A subjective truth, as I see it, is dependent on the subject. For example, "I like orange juice," this subjective truth is dependent on my likes and dislikes (mind-dependent). Whereas, an objective truth, is not dependent on the subject. For instance, the Earth has one moon, is objectively true, which is independent of my thinking, or independent of the subject (mind-independent). There is some overlap of these ideas, but generally this is true.
Also, as part of the nature of reality, we have abstract truths. Examples, include mathematical truths or principles, and the truths and/or principles of logic. These are contrasted with a posteriori statements, as opposed to a priori statements.
I'm trying to keep this book as basic as possible, so although I'll probably include some of this in the book, I don't want to get to esoteric. There have been many books written on the nature of reality, and I'm sure that whatever I put in the book, people will think I should have included this or that.
Sam!
No exceptions taken. Agreed, I realize you are wanting to keep it lucid. And I'm sure it's a struggle to balance all that from, as you said, being too esoteric.
Through induction, translating the NDE into more of a purely universal or objective truth is indeed challenging. For that reason, that is why I think it is more essential than not, to incorporate a chapter about said truth and reality. The reader should have a criterion of what your notion of truth and reality are... . It should be an early chapter in the book too.
Other than that, the last thought is whether you have considered EM field theories of consciousness? The idea there is to theorize consciousness as a direct metaphysical analogy to the NDE, where such phenomena become reality: https://medium.com/@aramis720/is-consciousness-just-a-complex-electromagnetic-field-9d4bf05326f0
You can try to explain metaphysical phenomena that speaks to feelings of Love, euphoria, excitement, intuition, et al. And you can argue that consciousness has not been fully explained by science.
It's all good!
You do need a good sense unit to hallucinate, otherwise the impulses are very weak.
You couldn't compare it to sight.
The capacity to dream things seems bound to this universe and one's like it.
Dreaming is also a factor of hallcuination. Meaning that healthy sense units are a must for dreamers.
I agree.
I have read very little about field theories of consciousness. My only goal in the book is to argue that there is strong evidence to suggest that consciousness is not confined to the brain. Moreover, that we do survive the death of the body. Coming up with a theory of consciousness is a different ballgame altogether. Although it is an interesting topic.
The question you ask presupposes that sensory experiences are confined to the body (or brain if you prefer). I'm suggesting that there is strong evidence that it is not confined to the body/brain. In fact, some people who have been blind since birth experienced sight in their NDE. The following is an example of a blind person seeing during their NDE.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qX0zBUYLFs
It is my contention that the mind is much greater than the brain. Also, that our consciousness is not confined to a physical body as we know it. It seems that we still have bodies in the afterlife, but they are greater by an order of magnitude. All of our sensory inputs are magnified once we are free of this body, including the expansion of our knowledge.
No quarrel there, however, what is the medium? In other words, the means and methods would be intriguing. Otherwise, the book would be restricted to recordation of NDE accounts. As such, aren't there plenty of those?
My book will be much different from many of the books that have been written. I'm presenting a much different kind of argument. No book that I've read has ever laid out the testimonial evidence as I have, i.e., in the way that I have. It's not just a book about testimonial accounts, although there will be some of that.
Many Christians either say that NDEs are demonic, or they latch onto those NDEs (cherry picking the evidence) where people claim to have seen Christ, Mary, or other religious figures. However, there is a lot of evidence that suggests, especially when looking at NDEs across cultures, that people interpret their NDE in terms of their cultural predispositions. So, if someone is a Christian, when they experience a loving powerful being, they tend to interpret that being as Christ. Whereas those in the Islamic religion will tend to interpret the being as Muhammad. This doesn't always occur, but when it does, one tends to find cultural influence. This suggests that although they may see a loving powerful being, their interpretation of who or what the being is, is probably not accurate. There tend to many more non-religious interpretations of the being, than religious ones.
There is almost no evidence, or very little evidence that suggests that there is a hell. In fact, in this case one can look at what is not reported, as well as what is reported. You would think that if there was a hell, there would be warnings about it from those who have already passed. In other words, in the conversations people have with deceased relatives they are never warned of the consequences of their sins (i.e., being damned to eternity in hell). You would think that if hell was a possibility, that deceased relatives would warn their loved ones of such a danger. However, in the thousands and thousands of accounts that I've read no such warnings occur.
What I have said about hell can also be applied to the idea of needing salvation (Christian salvation), i.e., if it is so important in terms of an afterlife, then why is it not mentioned in the conversations with deceased relatives. You would think that that would be number one on the list of things that are important, especially if it was true.
There is also very little testimonial evidence that there are such things as devils or demons. These tend to be religious ideas with very little or no evidence to support such beliefs.
The evidence, and I am going beyond the evidence to support the idea that we survive death, suggests that we chose to come here, i.e., to experience a human life with all its frailties. The idea that we chose this life, also answers the problem of evil, at least as Christians and others present it. If we chose to experience this life, then we knew ahead of time what we were getting into. In other words, we knew that we would suffer. It is quite possible that much of our lives were planned ahead of our coming here.
Agreed! Hence another reason I chose to be a Christian Existentialist.
Insights?
The reason I need a good argument is because of claims like yours, which is just an opinion.
The question we should ask first, is, what is a hallucination? Hallucinations are sensory perceptions that a person experiences without external stimulus. In other words, the experience is purely subjective and only exists in their mind, as opposed to objectively verified experiences. Hallucinations can occur in any sensory modality (hearing, seeing, taste, tactile, or smell). Hallucinations are not veridical, which is why they are called hallucinations. They are distortions of reality, and they are usually associated with illnesses like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.
What distinguishes veridical experiences from hallucinations? A veridical experience has an objective component that is shared with others, that is, we generally see (feel, taste, hear, and smell) the same things, we have shared external stimuli, which is what makes a normal sensory experience.
If NDEs are hallucinations, then why are so many people seeing the same things, at least generally? Moreover, if these experiences are not veridical, then why do so many doctors, nurses, family members, and friends verify the accuracy of the experience. In other words, those who are not having the experience corroborate the testimonial accuracy of the ones having the NDE. This is not the case with hallucinations, that is, others, who are at the scene of the hallucination do not report that the hallucination is an account of objective reality. Hallucinations are not corroborated, i.e., they are not veridical.
Many people who have an NDE describe their experience as hyper-real, that is, more real than real. When they compare their normal every day experiences to their NDE, their normal reality seems dreamlike by comparison. They describe their sensory experiences as expanded. For example, the ability to see what is happening in a more expanded field of vision, or seeing colors that they have never seen before. These are not the kind of reports that are associated with hallucinations, nor are they the reports of those whose brains are shutting down, or that lack oxygen, or that are the result of medication.
Why do so many people say that NDEs are hallucinations? There are many reasons. First, they are just giving their opinion. Second, these experiences (NDEs) do not fit their world view. Third, most or many people who have beliefs that are strictly materialistic are biased, and this is true no matter their education. Fourth, they have not studied NDEs, so they are just not sufficiently knowledgeable on the subject, again just giving their opinion based on what they think they know.
So, the objection that NDEs are hallucinations is just not a viable argument. Neither is it a viable argument that NDEs are random firings of a brain that is shutting down. Other criticisms of NDEs are equally lacking in evidence, such as, a lack of oxygen to the brain, delusions, dreams, or some other brain malfunction.
The most likely conclusion based on the evidence, is that these cases are not hallucinations, and that it is more likely than not, that they are veridical experiences.
It seems as though Christian Existentialists want to throw up their hands because they can't answer certain questions. I contend that reason is what is needed to answer the questions, and if we can't get the answers, we keeping working at it, we don't give up (like the Christian Existentialists).
Why do you classify a dream as a brain malfunction?
Whether a hallucination is veridical is impossible to determine. Reliance upon others' confirmations offers nothing by way of proof as that too could be part of the hallucination. It just seems you're making a metaphysical claim about the nature of reality suggesting that it is not intimately linked to and defined by perception.
Sam!
Well, let's see where should I begin... :snicker: . Since you put that out there , of course I will ask for justification to support your assertions. But of course, relative to the human condition, the use of reason and the intellect is very useful in a practical or pragmatic sense, to say the least. However, unless you can explain the nature of your own conscious existence, your clinging to reason will not help you there, will it?
How much thinking will change that? Can you think your way out of brute mystery and/or the existential things in life? Can science save you?
Assuming you are a believer (perhaps you're a Fundy, not sure), was Jesus' resurrection logical, supernatural or something metaphysical and transcendent?
That's just a very minor sampling of the existential questions for you to think about... . If your salvation is in reason itself, you will have to explain all of existence to me. And whether it is the nature of consciousness, the nature of the Universe/Cosmology and all its phenomena, or the nature of Love and the human condition (Ecclesiastes), I challenge you to provide logical explanation to all of it!
(You may start another thread if you care to...and no pun intended, but I would love to debate you on these things; the nature of existence!)
I didn't classify a dream as a brain malfunction. I gave a list of explanations of NDEs, and among them are brain malfunctions. I probably could have worded that better.
It's not impossible to determine, what makes something a hallucination, IS, the fact that it's not veridical, which is why some people call NDEs hallucinations. How do you think psychiatrists determine what is, and what is not a hallucination?
If you've been reading my posts you should know I'm not religious (and definitely not a Fundy). To answer your questions I would need to start another thread. However, at this time, I'm not up for it, sorry.
That's what I thought, LOL
Via cultural biases - which may or may not be correct - their own estimations of the person they are dealing with and their own experiences.
I presume the psychiatrist draws conclusions based upon what he perceives, which is what I do, yet all that begs the question of whether the psychiatrist or that I am hallucinating. If you've posited that there are certain perceivers whose perceptions cannot be trusted (i.e. those that are hallucinating), you can't then just declare that you're not one of them or that certain others are exempt. You can rely on pragmatism to get through this and then go about living your life as if this objection does not matter on a practical level, but you can't make the larger philosophical claim you've asserted, which is that some claims are veridical (that is, they comport to external reality) based upon the support of other perceivers.
First, though, I would like to add that some of these conclusions are based on the most in-depth of all the NDEs. What I mean is, those NDEs that give us the most information about the afterlife. These are what I call category 3 NDEs. There are thousands and thousands of category 3 NDEs, so these conclusions are not based on just a few testimonials.
Second, I don't want to give the impression that these testimonials give us all the answers, because they don't, but they, at the very least, give us some answers. Third, sometimes you can infer things based not only what is said, but what is not said. In other words, when people describe their conversations with those in the afterlife, sometimes what's left out of the conversation is very important.
In this thread I've argued that one of the strongest conclusions one can reach based on the strength of the argument is that we as individuals survive the death of the body. So, who we are continues after the death of the body, i.e., our memory continuity, and the continuity of our experiences continues. We don't just survive as energy, but we survive as individuals. This can be seen when people describe their sensory experiences, which by the way is very expanded, and it can be seen in the way they interact with deceased relatives and friends. For example, many people report having a life review, and in this review they remember their lives, and how they responded to others in their lives. Some people also remember their choice to become human, suggesting that their life pre-existed coming to Earth. We also know that we survive as individuals based on seeing deceased relatives and friends, i.e., they survived death, so we can infer that we too will survive death as the persons we are. We don't cease to exist. If anything our existence is expanded, i.e., who we are is much greater than who we are as humans. Part of what makes us who we are is the continuity of memory, and that remains intact.
Before I forget, I do want to mention something that I've not mentioned before (I might have mentioned it in passing), viz., that based on some of the discussions people have had in their NDEs with beings in the afterlife, we do have free will, or at least limited free will. This can be seen as people experience their life review, i.e., they know as they review their life (Earthly life) that different choices have better outcomes, suggesting that we're not locked into a fixed outcome, at least in some things. On the other hand, there seem to be things that we are meant to experience, so there maybe some things that are pre-determined. For example, who we will marry, and who our children will be, among other things. However, these things vary from person to person based on what our goals are in coming here.
Another conclusion that seems clear is that our memories are affected by our choice to come here. This can be seen in how many people describe their experiences. They report remembering who they really are, or they remember that their home is not here, but there, in the afterlife. Some actually remember their choice to come here, and who they would come with. Some remember choosing who their parents and siblings would be. Some also remember living out many other lives in other places besides Earth. In fact, it seems that we are able to choose to live out just about any life we can imagine. Another way in which our memories are affected, is that when we make the choice to come here, we forget who we are, what we are, where we're from, and why we've come here. I compare it to entering a dream, in a dream we forget where we're from, and we think that what's happening in the dream is what's real. The dream is real in a sense, i.e., we're really experiencing it, but it's not as real as our waking life. In the same way, when we return to the afterlife, this life seems dreamlike by comparison. Many people describe their NDE as more real than real, and that this life seems dreamlike, not the other way around.
Another important thing to remember in terms of the dream analogy, is this life is important, much more important than our dream life. I say this to point out, that because I use the analogy of dreams, I'm not suggesting that this life is unimportant. It's very important. We've come here for very important reasons, most of which we will not understand until we return to the place we come from. Much of this is hidden from us for very good reasons. One reason might be that if we did remember who and what we are, it would probably affect the goals we have in coming here, or the way in which we live our lives here.
Another conclusion based on very strong testimonial evidence is that our time on Earth is fixed. We see this over and over again, when people have an NDE they're told that it's not their time, they have to go back and accomplish their tasks or goals. Is it fixed in absolute terms? Probably not, but it's generally fixed for all of us. Because of this, I look at death much different from the way I looked at it prior to studying NDEs. No one should be afraid of death, we're just returning home.
One can also conclude that communication is much different from how we experience it in this life. We communicate mind-to-mind, which is a more perfect way of communicating, because we get the full sense of what a person means when they communicate with us.
These are just some of the conclusions that follow from the testimonial evidence.
My guess is that we are eternal beings, and that we can experience anything we want, sometimes for growth, sometimes to help others achieve what they need to achieve, and sometimes just for fun. So, what can you do for all eternity? The answer is, anything you like. If you can imagine it, then you can experience it. Imagine living forever, but also imagine being able to experience any experience. My best guess is that there are an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of possible worlds, and lives to choose. Some of these places are very difficult, and require a lot of courage to experience (for e.g. the life we are currently living). It's your choice, live whatever life you want. You're not forced to do anything. However, it does seem to be the case that we made a kind of agreement before we come here. One of the things in the agreement has to do with the time we are allotted here. Some of us choose to come for a short time, others a little longer, and still others, a life of 90 or 100 years. We come to test ourselves in various ways, we come to help others experience what they want to experience, and we sometimes probably come to fulfill a certain narrative. There are multiple storylines that we can choose. However, the most prevalent storyline is the family.
My final speculation is based on no evidence. It's this, if we create these worlds to experience, is it likely that some of the people in these worlds are simply part of a program? Think of it like these giant MMO games, some of the so-called people in the game are simply part of the game, part of the program, not real. It might not be so far fetched as it may seem. Especially if we want to control the game to a degree, or to have a certain kind of experience.
Sam!
Sounds very Existential to me, no? :chin:
We must have very different understandings of what it means to be an existentialist.
...you think?
For example you said Quoting Sam26
Are you saying that the reasons why we are here, are important, yet not understandable?
No, I'm saying that we may not understand all the reasons, but we may understand some of the reasons. That's true of almost everything, we understand some things, but not everything. Christian Existentialists, at least the ones I've read, are more about taking a leap of faith against reason, which is a religious move. I'm not religious, and when I claim to know something, I give reasons or evidence to support it, unless I'm speculating.
Sure, and that would be existential.
Quoting Sam26
I wouldn't say it is a "religious move" (or maybe elucidate some on your meaning there). Instead I would say taking a leap of Faith would involve not only the idea behind the Wager as it were, but also associating much of life's phenomena and conscious existence with a propose/Deity.
More specifically, the idea of sacrifice, in the form of death and resurrection (which is part of what you're exploring in the NDE), is beyond logical explanation, no? In other words, you are positing metaphysical forms of conscious states. Metaphysical phenomena. And if much of this transcends logic, what is wrong with that? Is the super natural logical? Is the 'religious experience' logical?
To embrace the illogical is your savior. To limit your self to logic is your... (?).
Otherwise, while inductive reasoning provides a very useful tool in processing the NDE phenomenon, aren't you essentially taking a leap of Faith in proposing your theories? And is that a bad thing?
Much of that is another reason why I suggested including a definition chapter to your book's beginning. A good example would be theoretical physicist Paul Davies book The Mind of God. The 1st chapter devotes lucid discussion to age-old "Reason and Belief" (from Aristotle/Plato to Hume/Kant), and the various meanings of same. Then he explores all the technical stuff that argues for a more plausible existence of purpose... .
Just trying to help.
AND:
Quoting Sam26
I think it was you--ahem--who raised the specter of Existentialism by the forgoing comments. And as such, you seemed interested (or at least opinionated) about same.
Again, just trying to help.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPGZSC8odIU
do you believe all living things are conscious?
if you don't, then you must also believe that consciousness is a function of brain complexity
at a certain point the brain gets complex enough to create consciousness
but this of course means that there can be no consciousness without brain activity
so there can not be consciousness after brain death
What, then, is the result, if the answer is yes?
Quoting dazed
How is that possible?
if you believe all living things are conscious then of course there can be consciousness after brain death since lots of living things have no brains
Is the idea of metaphysical will, the same as consciousness in all of nature?
In this thread I tried to steer clear of religious beliefs, although there is some overlap because we're talking about an afterlife. I've tried to use evidence that's not based on religious ideology, and I think I've succeeded. The testimonial evidence is from a wide range of cultural perspectives and beliefs, which gives a better picture of the NDE experience. The picture that I've formed is based on examining many thousands of these experiences. I don't believe you can conclude much by watching a few testimonials, other than to dismiss or agree with them based on your particular world view.
As has already been mentioned earlier in this thread, my view is that consciousness survives the death of the body. To say it another way, I believe we survive as persons, i.e., whatever it is that makes us who we are is not dependent upon the body/brain. For me, the testimonial evidence is overwhelming, which is why I took an epistemological approach to answering the question of consciousness surviving death. My main argument was inductive, and based on the rules of good inductive arguments I concluded that consciousness survives death. Do I know it with absolute certainty, of course not, but I do claim to know it with a high degree of certainty, and that's all that's needed. That's all that's needed in our everyday lives, and that's all that is needed in science, because much of what we claim to know is based on what is probably the case.
I see that you have started your old thread. Someone mentioned it to me, because I began a thread on the subject of consciousness when we die less than a month ago. I have looked at some of your post but certainly not all of it as it is 21 pages long, and I read this site on my phone.
I did look at near death experiences and had dialogue with some current members in my post, but even though I keep an open mind, I cannot see much evidence for the afterlife and looking at some of the posts you have written it seems to be mere speculation. Do you think that there is a case for life after death?
And yes, I do think there is a strong case for an afterlife, but I don't agree with the Christian perspective or an afterlife. In fact, I don't agree with any religious idea of an afterlife. Although it could be that religion arose from these experiences.
I am interested in the whole area and did get some debate going but generally I found that some of the members on this forum found the whole topic to be ridiculous. The reductionist materialist view seems to be very popular.
In the very last post I wrote I shared my most personal experience on the topic. I wrote it last because I did not want to voice it too publicly, because it is personal. It was just as my post was fading out that I wrote it, so it is possible that no one has read it at all. My post is called, What happens to consciousness when we die? and was last logged into 9 days ago, if you are interested and you could access it under the list of the viewed sites for this month.
I can see what you mean that my experience was more of an unusual experience than an actual near death experience, but perhaps what you are saying about my experience is true of near death experiences too, because the individuals did not die in the permanent sense.
However, it is interesting if you are saying that near death experiences are not identical but similar.
Personally, I am also fascinated by the whole area of out of body experiences too.
There are two ways to use the word proof, one is in reference to an inductive argument, i.e., I have sufficient evidence to conclude that X follows from the evidence. Inductive arguments are either strong or weak based on the evidence. They follow with a low, medium, or high degree of probability. You've proved your inductive argument if the evidence used to support the conclusion follows with a high degree of probability.
The second way we use the term proof in philosophy is when referring to deductive arguments, i.e., the conclusion follows with absolute necessity if the argument is sound (it's valid and the premises are true).
Although I can use both arguments, the deductive argument is less convincing, so I mainly use an inductive argument.
My claim is that there is sufficient testimonial evidence to reasonably conclude that consciousness survives the death of the body. In other words, I'm making the claim that I know the conclusion is true. And although I believe that I could make other claims based on the evidence, i.e., claims of knowledge, I'm limiting the scope of the conclusion. By limited, I mean I'm not trying to give evidence of a god, heaven, that we are eternal beings, or any other spiritual or religious idea; nor am I trying to give evidence of many of the other claims people are making while having such an experience. Although I do believe there is strong evidence to support other conclusions, and these conclusions have varying degrees of certainty, just as many of our everyday rational conclusions have varying degrees of certainty.
The first question is, what makes a strong inductive argument? As some of you know, the criteria for a good inductive argument is much different from the criteria of a good deductive argument. The criteria of a good inductive argument are as follows:
(1) number
(2) variety
(3) scope of the conclusion
(4) truth of the premises
(5) cogency
First, number. It seems rather obvious that if you have a greater number of testimonials that say X happened, then the stronger the argument. This does not mean that the conclusion relies solely on numbers, because numbers in themselves are not sufficient.
Second, variety. The greater the variety of cases cited the stronger the conclusion. Remember that when examining the conclusion of an inductive argument, the conclusion is either strong or weak, which is much different from a good deductive argument, where the conclusion follows with absolute necessity. The difference being what is probably or likely the case (inductive arguments), verses what necessarily follows (deductive arguments).
Third, scope of the conclusion. This has already been covered briefly in the opening paragraph. It means that the less the conclusion claims the stronger the argument. In other words, conclusions that are broad in scope are much harder to defend. A conclusion that is limited in scope is easier to defend.
Fourth, truth of the premises. Clearly this means that the premises must be true, which by the way, is the same criteria that makes a good deductive argument, i.e., a good deductive argument must be sound (soundness has to do with whether the deductive argument is valid, plus the premises must be true).
(a) Also, since we are dealing with testimonial evidence, in order to know if the testimonial evidence is true we need corroboration, i.e., we need an objective way to verify some of the testimonial evidence. This helps to establish the truth of the testimonial evidence, and since the evidence is testimonial evidence, it helps to establish the fourth criteria of a good inductive argument, viz., the truth of the premises.
(b) Another important factor in determining the truth of testimonial evidence is firsthand testimony, as opposed to hearsay or secondhand testimony. Firsthand testimony is stronger than hearsay or second-hand testimony, all things being equal.
(c) Consistency of the reports is another important criterion in terms of getting to the truth. However, testimonial evidence does not have to be perfectly consistent to be credible. When dealing with a large number of reports you will inevitably find some inconsistency. So, inconsistency itself is not enough to rule out the reports unless the inconsistency is widespread, and of such a number that it affects the quality and number of consistent reports. So although consistency is important, it must be looked at in terms of the overall picture.
Fifth is cogency. You rarely here this criteria, but it's very important in terms of effectiveness. Any argument's (deductive or inductive) effectiveness is going to be based on whether the person to whom the argument is given, knows the premises are true. For example, if I give the following argument:
The base of a souffle is a roux.
This salmon dish is a souffle.
Hence, the base of this salmon dish is a roux.
If you do not know what a souffle or a roux is, then you do not know if the premises are true, so how would you know if the conclusion is true. You may know that the argument is valid based on its form, but you would not know if the premises are true. Thus, you would not know if it is sound. For any argument to be effective, you have to know if the premises are true; and since knowledge varies from person to person, an arguments effectiveness is going to vary from person to person.
The next post will give the actual argument. This post simply tells us what makes a good inductive argument.
The following argument is based on the testimonials at the following site:
https://iands.org/ndes/nde-stories.html
The following argument is based on the testimonial evidence of those who have experienced an NDE, and the conclusion follows with a high degree of probability. As such, one can claim to know the conclusion is true. This argument makes such a claim.
Each of the aforementioned criteria (in the above post) serve to strengthen the testimonial evidence. All of the criteria in the previous post works hand-in-hand to strengthen the conclusion, and these criteria serve to strengthen any claim to knowledge. If we have a large enough pool of evidence based on the criteria above, then we can say with confidence that we know that consciousness survives the death of the body. In other words, we can say what is probably the case, and that is all that is needed.
Again, if there is a high degree of probability that these testimonials reflect an objective reality, then we can also say with confidence, that we know consciousness survives the death of the body. Thus, our knowledge is based on objective criteria, not on purely subjective claims.
We will now look at the testimonial evidence in terms of the five stated criteria, and how these testimonials support the conclusion.
First, what is the number of people who claim to have had an NDE? According to a 1992 Gallop poll about 5% of the population has experienced an NDE; and even if this poll is off by a little we are still talking about hundreds of millions of people. Thus, the number of accounts of NDEs is very high, much higher than what we would normally need to decide the veracity or accuracy of the testimonials, and much higher that what is normally needed to draw a proper conclusion.
Also, as was mentioned in the previous post, numbers in themselves are not enough, which is why the other criteria must be coupled with numbers. It's not numbers alone.
The second criteria of good testimonial evidence is variety, i.e., do we have evidence from a variety of sources? The answer to this question is in the affirmative. NDEs have been reported in every culture from around the world, which by definition means that we are getting reports from different religious views, and different world views. NDEs also span every age group, from young children, to the middle-aged, and finally to the aged. The testimonial reports come from doctors, nurses, scientists, atheists, agnostics, literally from every imaginable educational level and background. NDEs occur in a variety of settings, including drowning, electrocution, while awake, while on the operating table, after a heart attack, etc. People have also reported having shared an NDE with someone else, although rarely. They have happened when there is no heartbeat, with the blood drained from the brain, and with no measurable brain activity. They have been reported to happen with a minimal amount of stress, i.e., without being near death. Finally, there have been many thousands more reporting these and similar events happening to those who have taken DMT (N,N-Dimethyltryptamine), which is an illegal schedule 1 drug. These DMT reports are also reports that are happening without being near death.
The third criteria is scope of the conclusion, and the scope of this conclusion is limited to consciousness surviving the body. The conclusion claims that we can know that consciousness survives bodily death.
The fourth criteria is truth of the premises. To know if the premises are true we need corroboration of the testimonial evidence, a high degree of consistency, and firsthand testimony. In all or most of these cases, it seems clear that we have all three. We have millions of accounts that can be corroborated by family members, friends, doctors, nurses, and hospice workers. Corroboration is important in establishing some objectivity to what is a very subjective experience. It lends credence to the accounts. One example of corroboration is given in Pam's NDE out of Atlanta, GA, which can be seen on Youtube.
Consistency is also important to the establishment of the truth of the premises. We have a high degree of consistency across a wide variety of reports. What are these consistent reports?
1) Seeing one's body from a third person perspective, i.e., from outside one's body, and hearing and seeing what's happening around their bodies.
2) Having intense feelings of being loved, and also intense feeling of peace.
3) Seeing a light or tunnel in the distance and feeling that one is being drawn to the light, or moving through the tunnel towards the light.
4) Seeing deceased loved ones.
5) Seeing beings of light that one may interpret as Jesus, Mary, Muhammad, an angel, or just a loving being that one may feel connected to.
6) Heightened sensory experiences, viz., feeling that one is having an ultra real experience, as opposed to a dream or a hallucination.
7) Communication that happens mind-to-mind, not verbally.
8) Seeing beautiful landscapes.
9) Seeing people who are getting ready or waiting to be born.
10) Having a life-review by a loving being who is not judgmental in any way, but simply showing you how important it is to love, and the importance of your actions on those you come in contact with.
11) Feeling as though one has returned home. This is also confirmed by people who were told they chose to come to Earth.
12) A feeling of oneness with everything, as though consciousness is at the bottom of everything.
13) Memories of who they really are return, as though they temporarily forgot who they were, and where they came from.
14) There are also reports of knowledge returning, and many questions being answered.
15) Understanding that ultimately we cannot be harmed.
16) That we are eternal beings simply entering into one of many realities.
These are just some of the reports from those who experienced an NDE, and some of these reports are confirmed by those who have taken DMT.
Another aid in establishing the truth of the testimonial evidence are firsthand accounts, as opposed to hearsay. There are literally thousands of firsthand accounts being reported by the International Association of Near Death Studies. And according to polling, there are hundreds of millions of firsthand accounts of NDEs.
The fifth criteria is cogency of the premises. Whether the argument is cogent for you depends on many factors, but many people have heard of near death experiences, so the concept is not an unfamiliar one. It is not going to be cogent for everyone, but with a little study and reading it can be cogent. It is not difficult to understand the concept. Although it is probably going to be difficult to understand how it is metaphysically possible. This argument is claiming that it is highly probable that consciousness survives the death of the body, and that the conclusion is very strong based on what makes for strong inductive arguments.
The further claim of this argument is that I know that I know the conclusion is true. Is it possible the conclusion is wrong? Of course it is possible, but we do not want to base a belief on what is possible, but on what is likely the case. All kinds of things are possible, but that does not mean we should believe them.
You don't have to die in the permanent sense to know that there is life after death. There are millions of accounts of people seeing their dead relatives while having an NDE. This testimonial evidence alone tells us that those who have died in the permanent sense are still around. Sure we can't answer many questions about the afterlife, but that doesn't mean we can't answer some questions, viz., that we survive the death of the body.
The evidence for the argument I give in this thread is overwhelming. Only those people committed to a materialist world view, or those who seem unable to understand how testimonial evidence can be very strong, reject the argument.
I did read your post and I am not sure that the arguments you gave were convincing evidence of life after death, personally. I think that is only one aspect of the issue of the life after death debate.
People are still writing in the thread I created, mostly against life after death but some arguing from the point of view in favour of life after death. I do wonder if it would be worth you writing your argument about NDE in the thread because it is possible that people are logging into the one I created. Probably the two thread can be connected by links but, even so, if there are 2 with a similar title it is a bit confusing.
Whatever, you choose I hope that people engage with you, because I do believe that life after death is one of the central questions of philosophy. Personally, I am not convinced that the inductive argument is relevant for considering NDEs but others may view the matter very differently from me. But I definitely think that it is worth you going forward with your argument in some way because I felt that when I have been looking at the question some of on the site missed your prescience.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acN2MQQYGWg
NDEs occur in a variety of situations, but most occur during the process of dying, viz., when the heart stops beating, when there is no measurable brain function, etc. They definitely don't complete the process, if by completing the process you mean staying dead. If you watched the last video I posted, it's hard to imagine that what they're experiencing is lucid memories or imagination.
If you haven't watched the last video, I suggest watching the first 15 min.
Based on this argument my claim is that I know consciousness survives the death of our bodies. If this is true, it still doesn't get us any closer to understanding what consciousness is, other than to say it's more than the sum of our physical bodies. More specifically, it's more than brain activity.
At a very basic level, consciousness is awareness. Awareness of what? Awareness of ourselves as distinct things in relation to our surroundings. However, it seems obvious that there are different levels of awareness or consciousness. An earthworm's level of awareness is very rudimentary, nonetheless, it seems aware on a very basic level. We know this by the way the worm interacts with its surroundings.
Human consciousness, on the other hand, is more expansive. In other words, human awareness extends to thinking about our awareness, i.e., being aware that we are aware (introspection). Hand-in-hand with human awareness is the ability to communicate our awareness, and to not only think introspectively, but to think about our surroundings in ways that other living things can't.
If consciousness is more fundamental than our brain, what is that composition? I believe that consciousness is at the core of all reality, i.e., that the unifying principle of all reality (everything that exists, seen and unseen) is consciousness, or an intelligent mind or minds. However, what gives something awareness apart from biological matter (or any kind of matter) is a mystery that we are not even close to solving. It's much easier to suppose, or to conclude that consciousness arises from the stuff of the known universe. The composition of consciousness may not be anything physical at all. Moreover, composition implies component parts, but there may be no component parts in the way we think of components. Answering this question would be like trying to figure out alien technology that is billions and billions of years ahead of us.
One might ask, how did consciousness arise or begin? Maybe consciousness is timeless in some sense. It could be the source of all love and knowledge - all that is, will be, and has been. If everything is happening at once the question of a beginning or end lacks sense.
One final comment. I don't think this means that one has to be religious to believe that an intelligent consciousness is fundamental. I find there are too many dogmas in religion, and too many dogmas in atheism.
I am unsure if you would agree about the nature of the mind. I describe my view just to assure you that I am not committed to the prevailing materialist worldview. I believe in afterlife and past lives. I just think the kind of evidence you have provided is very weak by itself. I stress that this is not to dismiss it. It is just to say that it counts for very little and if someone believes in an afterlife solely on the basis of these kinds of testimony, then their belief is very poorly supported to the point of being unreasonable.
For example, surely the same reasoning that you employed in your original argument would commit you to insisting that there is a dream realm that we all travel to when we sleep?
Virtually all of us report having dreams when we go to sleep. And although the content of our dreams varies a lot, there are lots of resemblances - curious things happen in them; our perspective often radically alters; they have a strange atmosphere; we ourselves seem remarkably unperturbed by their strangeness while having them and so on. Lots and lots of things in common - so much so that it is safe to say that we share the same concept of a dream. I mean, we a use the same basic method to distinguish dream from reality, so all of our dreamlands differ from here in the same kind of systematic way.
All of this testimony is, of course, good evidence that dreams exist. We really do have them. And probably virtually every sleeping person has them even if on any given night only about 5% of sleepers remember having them (I just made that figure up for illustrative purposes).
But it is not good evidence that there exists a dream realm governed by laws of nature very different to those operative here and that we all travel to when we sleep, surely?
Wouldn't you be committed to saying otherwise? I mean the testimonial evidence for the dream realm is orders of magnitude better than that which you are offering for a post morten realm. So are you not now committed to adding a dream realm as well?
There are five criteria that make a good inductive argument, and these are explained in the link above.
(1) number
(2) variety
(3) scope of the conclusion
(4) truth of the premises
(5) cogency
My argument makes the claim that NDEs are veridical. In other words, not only are they real experiences, but the place that NDEers go to is real. In fact, most if not all NDEers claim that their NDE is more real than our normal everyday experiences, and that their sensory experiences are more expansive. Moreover, their feelings of love, peace, harmony, empathy, go far beyond what we experience here. There are literally hundreds of millions of people who have experienced an NDE, so in terms of numbers the argument fulfills the first criteria.
Bartricks makes the claim that this same argument could be made about our dream states, i.e., that it's a real place with physical laws etc. But, do we actually have large numbers of people making the claim that their dreams are real, i.e., that they are going to a real place? No. His argument comparing the two falls apart right from the start.
It's true that there are large numbers of people claiming to have dreams, and that there are a wide variety (second criteria) of people having dreams (across cultures, age groups, etc), but the key here is what they are claiming about their dreams.
Even if people were claiming that their dreams were taking them to a real place, where is the corroborating evidence? The fourth criteria in the argument I use (truth of the premises) involves corroborating evidence, viz., there are people who were at the scene of the NDE that can confirm the accuracy of the OBEs (accuracy of what people have seen while claiming to be out of their bodies). There are a large number of accounts that can be corroborated. Given that so many can be confirmed we have a way of objectively verifying the accounts. Again, even if people were claiming that dreams are real, we have no objective way to verify it, no corroborating evidence. A good example of this is Pam's NDE out of Atlanta, GA on Youtube. This is an important part of my argument, since you need a way to objectively verify what people are claiming. It can't be purely subjective.
You can read what I said about the consistency of the testimonials in the link above. This, obviously is another important part of the fourth criteria.
Bartricks also says that the argument is unreasonable, but nothing can be further from the truth. The argument is very strong and very reasonable. Granted, testimonial evidence is generally very weak evidence, but what people fail to acknowledge is that it can be extremely strong under the right conditions. And, I have given the conditions under which testimonial evidence can be strong.
Note too that the out of body experiences are different. I am talking about those who report having the experience of going to another place.
Such testimonies satisfy all of your criteria and thus provide us with evidence - proof, by your lights - of another realm.
Only, of course, they don't and so something has gone wrong with your lights. Again, I stress that all of your criteria are satisfied by our dream testimonies.
Note too you can't just dismiss this criticism as expressing a prejudice, for I believe in an afterlife. It is just that I believe in it on good grounds, not the dodgy grounds that you do.
First, there is no question in my mind that testimonial evidence can count, and can count for a lot. But it does not invariably do so. Philosophers distinguish between 'defeaters' and 'undercutters'. A defeater is countervailing evidence. An 'undercutter' is something that undermines the probative force that a piece of apparent evidence would otherwise have.
Normally, if something appears to be the case, that is good evidence that it is in fact the case. And we can apply this basic principle - the principle of phenomenal conservatism - to testimony as well. Normally, if someone says that something is the case, that provides us with some reason to think that what they are saying is true. And so if someone says that they had a near death experience as if they were going down a tunnel towards a light or whatever, then this provides us with default reason to think that they did indeed have such an experience. And as experiences of this kind - experiences with representative content (so, 'appearances' of some sort or other) - are default evidence in support of what they represent, then accordingly we can conclude that we have some reason to think that what appeared to this person to happen to them, did in fact happen to them.
So far, I take it, you would agree with all of this. For it is only if all of this is true that mounting up more such experiences will add probative force.
The problem, however, is that there are many circumstances under which we have undercutters for phenomenal appearances. If, for example, everyone in a room has taken a powerful drug that makes them extremely suggestable, and written on a blackboard in the room is the statement "there's a flying pig in the corner" - something that everyone in the room now confirms does indeed appear to be the case - we do not suddenly have good evidence that there is a flying pig in the corner. The fact all these people are on drugs and that flying pigs are things we have hitherto had no evidence exist, makes the more reasonable explanation that there is no flying pig in the corner and that the appearances to the contrary are the result of the drug's operations.
Well, that's the case with near death experiences and with dream experiences. There is no serious question that we do have the experiences constitutive of dream experiences, and no question that such experiences have a great deal in common, are attested to by virtually everyone, and, while one is subject to them anyway, can have representative contents as vivid as that contained by any phenomenal experience. And there is no serious question, I think, about near death experiences either - or at least, you won't find me questioning it. But in both cases we are in unusual circumstances - circumstances that operate as undercutters for those experiences. When it comes to sleep, we are unconscious. Our normal sensory modalities are not functioning. And so the more reasonable explanation of these experiences is not that they are accurate and that sleep transports us all to a bizarre other realm in which other laws of nature operate, but that we are hallucinating. And the same is true of near death experiences: those who have them are unconscious at the time and furthermore their body is under extreme stress. The idea that we become 'more' reliably hooked up to reality under those circumstances seems to me to be utterly bizarre and one only someone quite unreasonable would make.
It was a point that Descartes made. It would be foolish, he thought, to think that you become 'better' at discerning reality when you're asleep than when awake. And similarly, it would be foolish to think you become better when you are dying.
So, although there is no serious question that testimonial evidence often counts (and can count for a lot), the fact is that the testimonial evidence you are appealing to has no real probative force at all. In terms of what testimonial evidence can provide in the way of direct evidence for an afterlife, we actually have much better such evidence for a dreamland. And of course, as any reasonable person recognizes, we do not have good evidence for a dreamland. A fortiori, we do not have good evidence - not in the form of this kind of testimonial anyway - for an afterlife.
I wonder if someone has tried to create a theory in this line, explaining how somebody could have a perception coming from an inaccesible place to his senses and without intervention of the brain. Why the correlation with the physical waves reaching the eyes, ears, etc? How to explain dreams? While dreaming experiences doesn't match with external imputs...
We agreed until we got to the above paragraph. There is no question that both dreams and NDEs are unusual. And, it is true that there are common elements as attested by many who experience dreams and NDEs. It may be the case that while experiencing a dream we believe it to be real or veridical, but most people who awake from a dream do not confuse the dream with reality. They may say that the dream seemed real, but most (99% or higher) don't go on to argue that it was real. Dreams do produce intense feelings that are just as real as what we experience in our waking life, there is no doubt about this. However, there is nevertheless a quality about dreams that is just different from our waking life, which is why most people don't confuse dreams with reality. And, unusual circumstances don't always act as defeaters for a particular argument. They can, but it depends on the combined strength of the argument, and other factors.
Here are some key differences that lead many people to believe that NDEs are real. First, and I mentioned this in another post, people are reporting on real events, and this is corroborated by people who are not having an NDE, but are at the scene where the NDE is taking place. For example, people who are experiencing an NDE in a hospital setting (say in an operating room) are able to describe what is going on in the operating room in detail. Not only do they describe what's happening to them, but they are later able to describe the conversations between the doctors and nurses who are performing the procedures. Some also describe conversations that are going on in other rooms of the hospital. This happens to people even if there heart has stopped, or even when there is no measurable brain activity (including blood being completely drained from the brain). Now you want to tell me that NDEs are like dreams. Our dreams don't overlap with reality in this way. There is an added component to NDEs that dreams normally don't have, viz., the NDE overlaps with what others are experiencing in their waking life. This has been documented thousands and thousands of times, so it's objective evidence that has been corroborated. You just don't get this kind of overlap in our dreams, and if you do, it's very rare, not the norm. This is the norm with NDEs.
You say that it's unreasonable to argue that NDEs are real. I say that the evidence to support NDEs as real experiences (unlike dreams, hallucinations, or delusions) is overwhelming, and to deny it reflects someone who hasn't studied the data, is biased, or is just being unreasonable. I think it's more likely that you haven't studied the data, and your argument reflects this.
As you know, I am interested in the whole issue of consciousness after death too. My own view shifts and, deep down, I am not really sure. I do think that near death experiences point to a possibility of life going beyond this one, although I do think that it is possible to enter into heightened states of awareness of without dying too, including out of body experiences.
The other question which I wonder about, although I know that it is not directly in your thread but linked, is what the near death experiences point to ultimately. The reason why I say this is because I had a college tutor once who saw near death experiences as leading to a possible eternity of being in that dimension. At the time, I was swayed towards that idea. However, looking at that way of thinking now, I am inclined to think that that state would not be permanent. Personally, having read 'The Tibetan Book of the Dead,' I wonder if the near death experiences is an entry into the bardo state, and would be a period of time and lead to eventual rebirth. Of course, I realise that this is only a speculation.
Yes, I agree. One can have similar experiences through meditation, or by taking DMT. There were also studies done years ago on the brain where someone touching a particular area of the brain produced an OBE, or at least a partial OBE.
Quoting Jack Cummins
My view is that we are eternal beings, and that there is some evidence to support this from NDEs and other sources. However, the evidence to support this is not as strong as the evidence to support the conclusion that we do survive bodily death, which is what I'm claiming in this thread.
Think of it this way, there may come a time in our future where we essentially do away with aging, in fact, we are making strides towards this now. It's not hard to imagine that in the future we could download our consciousness into some other kind of body and continue living for long periods of time, barring an accident of some sort. If you can imagine this now, given what we know, imagine beings billions and billions of years ahead of our technology. They might be able to make a copy our consciousness in case there is some kind of accident. All you would have to do is reload it, and bang you're alive again.
There is good evidence that whatever is in the afterlife, it is far beyond anything we can imagine. I would think that life eternal is probably a small problem to solve. Not only is this a good possibility, but the way time passes there may also play an important role in how long we live. It could be that one year here could be an eternity there.
Since you brought up rebirth, I'll say a little about this. There have been thousands of reports by people who have had NDEs that we can choose to come back here in a different body. Now I don't believe in reincarnation as spelled out by some religion, but I do believe that we can choose different lives to live, either in this world or universe or other worlds and universes. I don't think it's forced upon you, but you can choose it. There is also some evidence that what we experience here has been planned out prior to our birth, and that the memories we have of who we really are is suppressed. This can be seen in some NDEs. What happens is that many people who have an NDE all of a sudden remember who they are and why they are here. Some of them are told that they will not be able to remember these memories when they return to their bodies. It's as if remembering too much hinders our life here in some way. There is much more that can be said about this, but it's a bit off topic, not much, but a bit.
We can only get so much information from NDEs. There are many more questions than answers, but there are some answers. We will see our loved ones again, including pets believe it or not. That our true home is there not here. That we are loved and cherished beyond words. Also, that there is no reason to fear death, or some religious idea of hell. Moreover, I don't think any religion quite captures the essence of the afterlife. Is there a God? I don't know, if there is it's probably nothing like the God as presented in any religion.
Yes, I think that NDEs only give us so much else and the rest is speculation. Even within Christianity there is a division between those who believe that people rest until a final resurrection at the end of the world.
I would agree that if there is consciousness beyond death it is far more complex than imagined within religious experience. I think that the whole idea of the astral dimension is important because that would be the one in which the person enters in the near death experiences.
Contrary to what you say, this commonly happens. "Did I remember that, or dream it?" is a common refrain.
But anyway, even if most of those who have NDE think they're real, there are obvious explanations for this. We are used to dreams and used to explaining them away. We also have no vested interest in them being anything other than, well, dreams. By contrast, the very nature of NDEs is such that we can expect to experience them once, if at all. And furthermore they occur under traumatic circumstances, ones likely to motivate people to re-evaluate everything, including their worldviews. It is simply implausible, then, to think that people under these kinds of circumstances are objective assessors of their experiences. That is not to say that these experiences do not constitute evidence, it is just to say that, as evidence, they are very weak indeed. If I was making a case for an afterlife, I wouldn't even mention them, just as, for an analogy, a detective who is trying to build a case for thinking that Jones did the murder wouldn't throw in 'he also had a bit of a shifty look'.
Quoting Sam26
These sorts of cases - if accurate (and that seems highly debatable at the moment) - seem to provide evidence for the immateriality of the mind, rather than an afterlife.
DNA evidence that Jones's hand was on the knife is good evidence that Jones killed Susan. That Jones has a bit of a shifty look about him is not.
That's just stupid Bartricks. I don't think you would know reasonable if it jumped up and bit you. I've seen many different arguments against NDEs, but nothing as ridiculous as yours. It doesn't seem to me that you know how to evaluate testimonial evidence.
Everyday stories are one thing, but what about stories out of the ordinary, stories that go against the accepted science of the time. Well, in such a case we need more than just a few testimonials that can't be verified, we need very strong evidence to counter the prevailing view. This is why I've pointed out over-and-over again that we need not only a strong number of reports (in this case 100's of millions of accounts), consistent accounts, a wide variety of accounts from different cultures, an objective way to verify the accounts, etc., etc. If this can be done, and it has been done, then the evidence becomes very strong. In fact the evidence can be so strong that it becomes unreasonable to reject it.
The argument I've made is based on logic, not opinion. It's based on what makes a good or strong inductive argument. So, it's not just a weak anecdote that cannot be verified.
Also my argument has a strong epistemological point to make, viz., that we can claim to know some things based on strong testimonial evidence.
For example, the problem with holy texts lies not in how they are interpreted, but in that they must be interpreted.
universal taxonomy - evidence by certainty
0 ignorance (certainty that you don't know)
1 found anecdote (assumed motive)
2 adversarial anecdote (presumes inaccurate communication motive)
3 collaborative anecdote (presumes accurate communication motive)
4 experience of (possible illusion or delusion)
5 ground truth (consensus Reality)
6 occupational reality (verified pragmatism)
7 professional consensus (context specific expertise, "best practice")
8 science (rigorous replication)
-=empirical probability / logical necessity=-
9 math, logic, Spiritual Math (semantic, absolute)
10 experience qua experience (you are definitely sensing this)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl3OS7aA1gg
How do we determine whether a particular experience is veridical or not? Very basically it's done by agreement. Moreover, we also agree that other experiences have a nature quite distinct from our normal everyday experiences, such as dreams, hallucinations, delusions, etc. And, we use these words as a way to describe experiences that are not veridical, nonetheless real experiences. We tend to separate out these experiences because they are so subjective, i.e., we can't objectively verify these kinds of experiences. Whereas, if I say there is an apple tree in my backyard, there is a way for others to check the claim, viz., we can see it for ourselves. It can get more complicated, because what if I have a dream that there is an apple tree in my backyard, and there is really an apple tree in my backyard, does this mean the dream is veridical? Obviously not.
So, part of the problem, as in many philosophical arguments is weeding through the semantics of the argument. In many ways it's related to some of things Wittgenstein worked on, viz., how we use words. What do we mean by "real," "dream," hallucination," "conscious," etc? Understanding the use of these words can help clarify the argument and get us closer to the truth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OGtxV0a6f8&t=860s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0AvstZQl1o
Also, my conclusions are not coming from a religious point of view, especially since I'm not religious. I also don't believe that NDEs necessarily support the idea of a God, so I'm agnostic about that. It is true, however, that people who have had an NDE believe they've encountered religious beings (God, angels, Jesus, Muhammed, etc.), but I have found when comparing NDEs from around the world that one's culture affects how one interprets the beings they encounter. So, just as our everyday experiences are sifted through our worldview, the same is true of NDEs. I have found very little evidence that supports the idea of a particular religious God, which is not to say there isn't some supreme being, but only to point out that if there is, it's probably very different from how religion defines God. There does seem to be some source that we emanate from, i.e., some base consciousness.
In this thread my argument has centered around the conclusion that consciousness survives the death of the body. This means that consciousness is not a biological function, no more than a radio or TV is the source of the programs that you hear or see. The brain, for lack of a better analogy, acts as a receiver, and when the receiver is destroyed in some way, it no longer picks up the signal. The source of the signal is still there, but the receiver (the brain) is no longer able to receive that signal.
There are other conclusions that can be inferred based on the evidence, but I've tried to limit the scope of my conclusion to make it as simple as possible. Some of the other conclusion that can be inferred is that our loved ones have survived the death of the body (encountered deceased loved ones happens quite often in an NDE), that our home is not here, i.e., we originate from another place (metaphysical place), that there are specific reasons why we choose to experience this life, and that we choose many of our experiences prior to coming here. There is also the idea that we have experienced many lifetimes, but I don't like using the term reincarnation because of the religious baggage that comes with it. What seems clear to me is that if we do live out other lives there has to be a source that maintains the continuity of the self, otherwise it's difficult to make sense of the idea. I do believe there is a point from which the self operates, and from that point it can place itself into other realities. In a way, we do this already with games like WoW or Final Fantasy XIV, but in a very limited sense. I can play multiple characters in the game, but each character is still me, i.e., I can maintain the continuity of the self, even though I can act through different avatars.
Why not just deny the possibility of eternal oblivion by denying the existence of a continuous self, even within a single lifetime? That way you circumvent the need for evidence of reincarnation, and avoid all of the scepticism that the begging of evidence entails.
Well, I go where the testimonial evidence leads even if I don't understand how or why certain experiences happen. There is much about these experiences that are mysterious, but if these are veridical experiences, which I believe they are, then if would obviously follow that we lack understanding of the mechanisms involved. It would be like trying to figure out a civilization that is thousands or millions of years ahead of us, much of what would be described would seem contradictory or impossible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCOpzLBYeto
https://www.sciencealert.com/a-man-who-lives-without-90-of-his-brain-is-challenging-our-understanding-of-consciousness
The little note at the end is the most important part of the article which betrays the notion that the person lost neurons at all (..or at least the amount proposed). In fact when the article became popular on other corners of the internet, many people were already saying the same thing. Impressive that his brain withstood that much pressure, for sure, but I'm not sure how this particular story helps your idea.
The body does not survive consciousness.
No I didn't
The body does not survive consciousness.
Is what I said and what I meant.
Is consciousness in the body?
Or is the body in consciousness?
Radio doesn't pick up sound waves. It picks up patterns of electromagnetic radiation and converts them into sound waves. Neither of which are conscious.
The ears pick up sound waves and convert them to electronic impulses in the brain. Again neither of which are conscious. And neither of which contain any music.
Obviously the waves are not conscious, who would think that? It's just an analogy to show that the brain is in some way like the radio. Like most analogies it has its limitations in terms of likeness.
The brain is a temporary aspect of consciousness,
it appear and disappears in consciousness,
and therefore cannot be receiving it
Your making statements without giving an argument in support of your conclusions or beliefs. How do you arrive at these beliefs? What's your supporting data?
That's the problem. People are too busy believing to look at the evidence.
I don't claim any belief, I just describe the evidence as it actually is. Look for yourself.
We don't need to disprove/deny a negative(something with no evidence).
It's impossible to prove to someone their consciousness is not eternal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYjnZCy_ZK4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynTqCFBhRmw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv25EcaUQBo
:ok:
Wittgenstein doesn't deny our inner subjective life. One can think of it this way, when I use the word cup, meaning isn't derived from the object (the referent), although the object can be used to help us understand how to use the word in linguistic social settings. So, it's not as though the object has no role in our language, so we want to be careful to not eliminate our talk about the object. The tendency is for us to associate the meaning of a concept with the object, this is where we go wrong. It's a difficult habit to break, because it's so pervasive.
The point of the above remarks is to say that our inner life isn't some illusion, as some would suggest. There are those materialists who believe that if it's not an illusion (the illusion being the sense of self that seems to be non-material or metaphysical), then we can't explain it in terms of the material. Their point is that that sense of self can be explained in material terms, so they write off the metaphysical awareness by saying it's an illusion.
The first mistake is to call our inner awareness an illusion. Of course we can be mistaken in thinking it reflects some metaphysical existence (although I don't think it's a mistake based on the testimonial evidence of NDEs). Illusions only make sense against the backdrop of the real, of reality. So illusions give the appearance of something real. In other words, they cover reality with a blanket that hides the real. For example, the illusion of seeing a women cut in half by a magician. We can only say it's an illusion because we know that the women isn't being cut in half, although it appears so. So, we need to ask ourselves, what is the illusion of? Am I not having these inner experiences? Who is having the illusion, if not me? If I were to uncover reality would I find that someone else is having the real experience of self? Supposedly, if we were to uncover reality in this situation, we would find mechanistic explanations of consciousness or self. So, what the mechanistic or materialists want us to believe is that brain produces in us the illusion of consciousness or self. If someone is having an illusion, it presupposes a consciousness, i.e., it presupposes the real, so who is having the illusion? However, they might argue that it's not all an illusion, just the part where we disagree with them, the metaphysical part. I think part of the problem is the misuse of the word illusion. Just as the word hallucination is misused in describing NDEs. At the very least the argument that consciousness or the self is an illusion is spurious.
Another mistake is in defining consciousness as some thing in the brain, i.e., you're not going to be able to point to some process and say, "This is consciousness." Of course you can get around this by saying that certain brain processes produce consciousness. I can't make any sense out of material processes producing the feeling I get from seeing a beautiful sunset.
That said, I wouldn't use any of these arguments to argue against the materialist worldview. I'd use my inductive argument already given in this thread, it's much stronger.
Anyway, just some thoughts.
Congrats! :up:
How have you managed to create such a good and successful discussion with such a difficult topic?
I just crated a topic with the title "You are not your body!" 3 days ago, which is much simpler and more "digestible", and half of the place in here tried to devour me! :grin: It seems that I offended them! :grin:
Most of them don't even believe consciousness exists but it is only a concept or illusion! And in your topic, it is taken even to a higher level!
Thank you for that, because, after I am about 3 months in TPF and started to think that I was in the wrong place!
Thank you for responding!
Yes, this is usual the case based on the the replies I get myself. But I thing the problem is more severe: this misinformation cannot be "repaired": it gets stuck in the mind and "acts" as a prejudice!
Quoting Sam26
There's certainly no need for that! I have never connected consciousness to religion. It's a purely philosophical subject (e.g. Philosopy of Mind). So, this idea belongs to the "misinformation" that you are mentioning.
Quoting Sam26
Exactly. I have mentioned this quite a few times (with different words, of course) and it is also what I said above about "prejudice". If misinformation is an obtacle to knowledge, prejudice is a huge obtacle!
When I'll find time, I'll read comments from people and yourself on your very interesting topic!
As a matter of fact, even if there exists such a thing as the human "soul"/"spirit", it would naturally be expected to remain "within" the body throughout an event called a "near death experience", and only exit the body following the "death experience"...the death of the body, do you not think? The only possible resolutions of this problem are that either we must rename "near death experiences" to reflect the actual death of the subject, or we must recognize that no soul or spirit has left the body during the time in question, for either there is death or there is not, and death must be held to be irrevocable, despite the Catholic Catechism's insistence on the eventual "resurrection of the body" (not to pick on the Church, but I was raised Catholic). If no soul has ever left the body, which situation is suggested by the term "near death experience", my "stimulated dream thesis" would appear to be the only apparent explanation.
I rather watch a video. :smirk:
https://youtu.be/UwLN7HVr28o
They do have something to lose, something very precious to them...their (apparent) delusions about living for ever and ever, and thus having to confront their own mortality, ever the horror of mankind.
There's also the concept of an unembodied mind:
One wonders at the "scientific" evidence for such "certainty"?
By inference. We presume that others are just like ourselves. I think it’s a perfectly valid presumption. ‘I know how you must feel…’ ‘I can’t imagine how you must feel…’ and other such statements are intelligible statements.
Functionally, I cannot discern the difference between this and "soul", "spirit", "ghost", etc. (BTW, yom tov)
Quoting Ambrosia
I know only what I have experienced in this world. It is he who makes the assertion that there is an incorporeal aspect of my being which can live and experience reality apart from, and after the death of, my body who has assumed (thereby) the burden of providing evidence therefore. I do not claim this to be utterly impossible. My sole assertion is that I have no evidence for these things, and am awaiting substantial evidence therefore...
I have never experienced zero conciousness. Its never been proved.
Nor has anyone ever experienced zero conciousness.
You are speaking from outside your experience. And according to your scientific method you cannot prove non existence.
So material death for you involves semi conciousness or unconsciousness and not zero conciousness?
So you know nothing about "non conciousness" yet you ascribe it to bodily death.
Pure materialist fiction.
Look, this seems to be upsetting you somewhat. As I have indicated elsewhere, I am loath to disabuse people of their closely held eschatological beliefs, as so doing has the potential of being psychologically damaging. I would not have this conversation "on the street" unless prompted. If you feel that you are being challenged thusly, perhaps we should break this dialogue off. I do not want to be responsible for causing anybody psychic pain. At the same time, you must realize that this is a philosophical forum, where the participants must feel free to discuss challenging issues forthrightly.
Are you for real? I eat materislists like you up for breakfast!!!
Your compassion is touching but wrong fella mister!
Ain't shit you could say to upset me!
Anyway,why you so sure of the end of conciousness when you have zero experience of it?
Major unempirical and pretentious no?
Then please, Ambrosia, desist with the emotionally charged language...
Quoting Ambrosia
I have seen dead people; indeed, I have killed people (combat veteran) in a horrible and definitive manner (as a gunner on an M1A1 tank), and know that said victims have had no consciousness post-mortem. In addition, I have never seen anyone I know to have died regain any level of consciousness.
Regarding being "so sure", I am sure of nothing. The "certainty" you have suspected me of above does not exist. I only have beliefs based upon my experiential evidence and reason, and claim certainty about nothing.
In the latter case, a human being is publicly defined as 'being unconscious' according to behavioural criteria, such as bodily reflexes failing to respond to stimulation. But in the former case, when we speak of personal unconsciousness of ourselves, we aren't using a public behavioural definition and we only speak of personal unconsciousness in the past tense. Ironically a person makes this past-self judgement according to observations they presently make.
For example, a person wakes up in the morning from a deep-sleep and concludes that they didn't exist during the previous night , due to not remembering anything over that period. But how does the person determine that they don't remember anything about the previous night? They ask themselves what they remember and they observe that "nothing" comes to mind, but "nothing" here means that whatever is presently sensed or comes to mind is considered to be irrelevant to the question. Yet this purported 'evidence' for past-personal unconsciousness in effect constitutes present empirical criteria for defining what is meant by past-personal unconsciousness, which might suggests to an empiricist that the concepts of past-personal-unconsciousness and present personal consciousness aren't ontological opposites.
I'm curious, what strikes you as preposterous about that?
I've been wanting to make a tread about inferences to other minds for ages.
Simply the idea that I might pop in and out of existence so readily, for one thing. More significantly, that the objective reality of my existence should be influenced by the subjective reality of my perception thereof. Reality, by which I mean objective reality, is stronger than perception. Perception, after all, is a fickle and imperfect instrument, and so undependable; such is why we can never know anything with absolute certainty.
Life ending at death is less of a scientific matter and more of a semantic matter. At least initially.
That depends on how one defines "death". True death is not the cessation of cardiac function, and the flat line on the EKG monitor; such hearts are regularly caused to resume their functioning with the application of electric impulse to the torso. True death has occurred when the brain has died, and cellular metabolism has ceased. You are correct in stating that semantics fail us here...
I can't remember the context of what you're referring to, but ya, I agree (I can't find where I said that). This is why solipsism doesn't have a good argument.
Semantics don't fail us here, mostly in here we're talking about clinical death. You can sometimes be brought back from clinical death. Moreover, with reference to an NDE, it's a near death experience, obviously you didn't die in the absolute sense. Doctors often use the word death in reference to those who have been brought back, it's perfectly acceptable.
Agreed, but I still maintain that the English wordstock fails us here. In order to have a precise philosophical discussion about this, it would seem to be helpful to have a variety of terms describing the various senses attributable to the word "death", just as it is helpful to the Inuit people to have many different terms in their language to describe the differing senses attributable to the English word "snow".
Quoting Sam26
This is precisely my point, assuming that you are arguing for the existence of "the human soul". If our subject is, indeed, a near death experience, and not an intance of death (as I have defined that above), then any "soul" present within the corporeal person could never have separated itself from the body to have the experiences claimed by the attestors. This means that if a subject/patient has been "brought back", as they romantically say, then that subject never in fact died, any extant soul never left the body, and the only explanation for any phenomenon of perception is explained by the "stimulated dream thesis", or if you like, the "perceptive dream occurrence" which I have described above. See what I mean?
This would seem to simplify the matter exponentially...sorry for reading into your thesis. If there is no incorporeal part in play, then it must be that the subject retained a level of consciousness. Because the subject of a NDE never died, he or she retained a minimized level of consciousness, which allowed him or her to percieve dialogue and other sounds as they experienced a dream like state in which they "hovered" over the scene, and incorporate these perceptions mentally into a unified whole. Make sense?
Yes, that might be true from your perspective when it comes to you appraising the mental state of other people. But can you speak meaningfully and authoritatively about past cases of your own unconsciousness? what empirical criteria are you using in this case? Is it really possible for you to infer necessary conditions for the existence of your own mind via analogical reasoning from your understanding of the necessary conditions for other minds?
I don't mean to imply that this phenomenon is a dream as we have in sleep, but rather a dreamlike experience or another phenomenon akin to a dream...in the same genus as a dream, but of a different species. The sense of heightened awareness is probably attributable to the adrenaline which is certainly flooding the subject's circulatory system, in any case.
The brain does a whole lot of filtering of sensory input. If some of those filters start to fail...
I know just how you feel.
I am not convinced that you fully understand my meaning. Please indulge me while I explicate my assertion that no, consciousness indeed cannot survive the body, given the parameters which you have indicated for the discussion.
The abstract noun "consciousness" refers not to any object or thing, but rather to a condition or set of circumstances experienced by some object. Since the experiential condition described by "consciousness" is that of awareness of the outer world, which is to say, of a subjective reality, the object experiencing consciousness is a living being possessed of a mind, which mind is composed of intellectual and affective dimensions; the object in question is a rational and emotional living being. The important thing to keep in mind regarding this, is that "consciousness" is not a thing which can exist independently of an object
In the case of a near death experience, the rational/emotional living being in question can but be either the physical person in distress, or some incorporeal aspect of that person which is able to live and experience consciousness independently of that physical person, i.e. the "soul", or whatever else you want to call it (ghost, spirit, astral body, dadada...) That is, the only alternative to the corporeal person (the man) experiencing consciousness, is the incorporeal person (the man's soul, ghost, etc.) experiencing consciousness. You have stated, however, that you do not want to consider the concept of the human soul, or whatever else I might wish to call the incorporeal aspect of the human person, within this discussion. The soul is thusly removed from consideration. This leaves us only with the living, corporeal, physical person to experience consciousness.
This is where the argument fails.The wording of your original question is, "can concsiousness survive the body?" Since English "survive" is composed of Latin "super" (above, over, beyond) + "vivere" (to live), and so "to survive" means "to live beyond". This renders your original question, "can consciousness live beyond the body?" With your restriction of the living physical person as the only object which can experience the condition of awareness called "consciousness" in your model, the answer must be that with the death of the physical body, consciousness is annihilated. In the case of a "near death experience", consciousness has not "survived" (lived beyond) the body, because the body has never died.
This would appear to be the end of the discussion, as all available options have been considered, unless I have misunderstood your thesis.
As pertains s to the question "can consciousness survive the body?", the argument is as follows:
(A) Consciousness only exists when there is an object to experience it, a "conscious host";
(B) said object, in the instant case the human body, must be alive in order to experience consciousness, an thereby be a "conscious host";
(C) therefore, consciousness can neither exist apart from nor "live beyond", which is to say "survive" the death of, the human body.
As pertains to the question "can the occurrence of near death experiences evidence consciousness suviving bodily death?", apparently the true thrust of this thread, the argument is as follows:
(A) An event can only evidence consciousness surviving the body if death of the body attends said event;
(B) "near death experiences" do not involve death of the body;
(C) therefore, "near death experiences" can not evidence consciousness surviving the death of the body.
I admit to being highly influenced by logical positivism, but even if I weren't, I think that I would have tremendous difficulty with the panpsychic suggestion. I simply see no evidence for an "anima mundi", and this lack of evidence is why I think we should all be sceptical...why we should consider pansychism not to be real. Panpsychism did not arise out of observation. Rather, it was begotten by earlier animistic and pantheistic belief systems (the idea that there is a "spirit" or a "god" within everything), themselves born simply of superstition, and which themselves could not be sustained within the context of ancient cultural development. As a result, panpsychism developed and was maintained within our cultures without there ever being any evidence therefore. I have ever been impressed that Bertrand Russell seemed to subscribe to a sort of panpsychicm, he who refused a belief in deity for lack of evidence.
What about you feeling, percept, your emotions, thoughts, ideas, dreams. You are aware of all. How can this be if all matter were just matter? Devoid of content? Don't you think psycheless matter is an abstraction, taking out its most important ingredient? Of course a stone is not conscious, but how can the stuff you eat turn into your consciousness if it didn't had itself a (very rudimentary) piece of soul? Maybe pansoulism is a better word.
All reason and emotion are the product of the intellectual and affective dimensions of my mind, respectively, and so all the product of bioelectrical and biochemical processes within my animate body, primarily my brain. By means of my sensory organs, I am able to discern and so become subjectively aware of the various aspects of objective reality, including objects both animate and inanimate. By the activity of my nervous system, I can then think thoughts about these awarenesses, and feel emotions in response to them.
Don't yòu think it's the other way round?
Haha, perhaps you are right...that would appear to be true! Thanks for the thought check! Even so, the physical mechanisms causing the thoughts and emotions remain the same, in my view.
Do you have Swiss consciousness? Somehow your name sounds Swiss. Like meusli.
"Someone said so" is not in general an adequate justification for an inference or belief.
Testimony can be a way of "attaining knowledge". It can also be a way of falling into error and confusion. The outcome depends on the testimony, and it depends on one's ability to sort reliable testimony from unreliable testimony.
Quoting Sam26
The credibility of the witness. The plausibility of the claim.
But how do we assess these two factors?
Quoting Sam26
Something along those lines would seem fitting.
I suppose at some threshold the implausibility of the claim begins to undermine the credibility of the witness. As we approach that threshold, we become increasingly disposed to discount the claim, absent something in addition to support it.
Quoting Sam26
It seems to me that when we use the word "reality" as a noun, with a capital R so to speak, we mean something like this: the whole world, all existence, whatever is in fact the case for all time and all place, or whatever "dimensions" or parameters we should name alongside or instead of time and place, regardless of whether it is known or unknown, knowable or unknowable.
I suppose we may also speak (affirmatively or negatively) of the "reality" of an assertion or an intention -- did the speaker really mean it, did he mean it wholeheartedly and sincerely, was he holding something back, was he lying. Likewise, we might speak of the "reality" of a perception, or even of appearances in general.
What other sorts of example of this (small r) use of the term might we list?
How should we say the "small r" uses are related to the "big R" use? Is there a more conventional pair of labels for these uses?
I prefer to analyze ordinary sayings like "The Tooth Fairy isn't real", "The Tooth Fairy doesn't exist", and "There's no such thing as The Tooth Fairy" as shorthand or placeholders for more sophisticated assessments. Something like "The Tooth Fairy is the name of a (mere) creature of fiction that serves as the locus for a set of cultural practices". In my preferred usage, creatures of fiction count among the "real things", the "things that exist", though they exist (merely) as creatures of fiction. So I interpret an ordinary-language dispute about whether The Tooth Fairy exists, as a dispute about whether The Tooth Fairy is a (mere) creature of fiction.
Quoting Sam26
I call myself a skeptic in the (Pyrrhonian) spirit of Sextus. I find a kindred view shifting in and out of focus when I read Wittgenstein's On Certainty. A few months ago I discovered this is an active niche in the academy.
See, e.g., Pritchard, "Wittgensteinian Pyrrhonism", or Eichorn, "The Elusive Third Way: The Pyrrhonian Illumination in Wittgenstein's On Certainty"
I'm no scholar. But I'd agree that Wittgenstein often seems to overreach in drawing his boundary between sense and nonsense, and that such straining is exemplary of a repressive tendency typical of 20th-century naturalism. At least in many cases where Wittgenstein calls nonsense, the Pyrrhonist would merely suspend judgment. A different sort of quietism, a more inclusive peace, a more wholesome common ground.
Did at any point I make such a claim? You didn't pay close attention to what I said over the course of this thread. You are correct, that "someone saying this or that" is not in itself always sufficient to justify a belief. However, it depends on context, if you're in a class being taught by an expert in biology, that can be a justification for believing what the person is saying. Much of what we believe comes in the form of testimony from trusted people. When you read a book by an expert in a particular field of study, this is a form of testimonial evidence. You certainly aren't involved in the experiments of scientists, so you take their word for it. Obviously not all testimony is worth considering. It's a matter of knowing the difference between kinds of testimonial evidence.
Did I at any point suggest that you had made such a claim? I'm surprised to find you so quick to interpret such a straight answer as if it implied a disagreement.
I was simply picking up the theme you raised, not disagreeing with you. I was offering a clarification of a point you made after you invited "us to clarify several points". In offering my own humble clarification, I did not intend to imply that it was news to you.
Quoting Sam26
It's my custom to enter a thread by replying directly to the original post. Would you like to discuss this practice here, or perhaps in some other place? I'd prefer instead to restrict our discussion to the substantive themes you've raised, without getting bogged down in frivolous discourses on manners and protocols.
Quoting Sam26
I agree that demonstrated expertise is one of the factors that typically supports the credibility of a witness. I agree that many common-sense beliefs about the world are supported by testimony. I agree, and stated in my initial response, that a lot depends on a judge's ability "to sort reliable testimony from unreliable testimony."
Who would deny such statements?
However, expertise does not always entail credibility of the witness, even in matters about which the witness has demonstrated expertise. For instance, we might have good reason to believe that an expert witness has often been found to be a liar, or to contradict themself from time to time -- like a bullshitting politician. We might have good reason to believe that the expert witness has often been immoderate in his certification of his own opinions when in fact they conflict with the opinions of other experts who possess equivalent credentials -- like a delusional fanatic. And of course the general reliability of a witness is not always sufficient to support their credibility in a given claim, nor to support the plausibility of the claim.
If you happen to have read any further than the first sentence of my previous reply, you might recall I suggested that:
Quoting Cabbage Farmer
I offered this as a clarification of a point you had made:
Quoting Sam26
Here again, my suggestion was offered as a clarification, not as a disagreement, my friend.
Now I wonder, do you agree with that suggestion I made in my attempt to clarify your point about a "higher standard" of evidence in "extraordinary" cases?
I mean, do you agree that the implausibility of a claim may tend to undermine the credibility of the witness who makes the claim? Do you agree that "extraordinary cases" like those you indicated typically involve claims that are considered prima facie "implausible", regardless of the general credibility and expertise of the witness who makes the claim; and that for this reason, something in addition to that testimony is typically required to support the claim in question?
:fire:
I’m pretty partial to this line of thought as well. If consciousness is intrinsic and all permeating, then it is the “grounds” for the rest of reality which you would simply come back to, and perhaps take form in another way… the mechanism and how this would exactly happen is definitely beyond me.
Sorry it took so long to respond. I think we generally agree, with some clarifications, or maybe some disagreement. Yes, I do agree that generally "...the implausibility of a claim tends to undermine the credibility" of that claim. However, I don't think that because something seems implausible, that it follows that it is. Many discoveries have been overturned in science because people considered what most find implausible. So, there has to be the right kind of balance, we tend to get to invested in certain worldviews, which can impede new discoveries.
I do agree that more is needed than just a claim, i.e., we need some objective way to verify claims that seem implausible. I'm not sure you read my argument which was given further down on the first page, but I go into detail about what is needed to support my inductive argument, i.e., what drives good testimonial evidence.
Quoting Sam26I agree. It's on the basis of that impression that I've sought to begin by getting a clearer view of where our respective outlooks on the concept of testimony may align or diverge. It's not clear to me to yet what either of us has to say on the subject. I have my own dispositions in the matter, but haven't spent much time sorting them out.
It's mind-boggling to consider the way the work of many minds coalesces in a single person's worldview through the medium of culture.
Quoting Sam26The point I was considering is that the implausibility of a claim tends to undermine the credibility of the witness who makes that claim. If the expert can't provide enough support to make the claim seem plausible, but persists in asserting the claim, this tends to count against the expert's credibility. The witness must be able to provide some reasonable account of the justification or basis for the claim, and that account must stand up to scrutiny. If it stands up to scrutiny, it's plausible. If it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, then on what grounds would the expert affirm it?
Quoting Sam26Do you mean something like this:
The fact that a claim seems plausible to me or to anyone does not entail the claim is true. Likewise, the fact that a claim seems implausible to me or to anyone does not entail the claim is false.
Plausibility is always plausibility relative to some epistemic context. Our evaluation of the plausibility of a claim is in principle open to revision.
Quoting Sam26
What's the right sort of balance?
There's always the problem of allocation of resources. There's always the problem of prioritization. It would be as disastrous for our global society as a whole, as it would be for any single person, to continually commit a significant share of resources to every conceivable investigation.
When I lose my eyeglasses or my house keys, I don't book a flight to every city on Earth to track them down. I look in a few places nearby, beginning with the most likely. Sometimes they don't turn up and I broaden the search. Occasionally I've found my keys still in the lock on the door. Once I found my eyeglasses in the refrigerator.
Quoting Sam26
Something's got to make the claim seem reasonable enough to warrant the time and other resources we spend considering it. There's something like a halting principle that disposes us to constrain our investigations to a range of reasonable alternatives -- in every case a quite narrow range compared to the infinite range of conceivable alternatives.
Quoting Sam26
I have read it. It seems our views on the evaluation of testimony may diverge as your argument proceeds. I hope to address that argument in subsequent comments.
I happen to be interested in the more general conversation about testimony. I also think it was insightful of you to have opened a conversation about near-death experiences with independent consideration of the topic of testimony. I agree it's a useful approach, and hope our subsequent conversation may benefit from these preliminary considerations.
I agree, that an implausible claim undermines the witness making the claim. I will go a step further, and say, that a claim given by a group of people (say, as part of their worldview) is also undermined when it's implausible. Whether some claim is implausible also depends on who is making the claim, i.e., are they an expert in the field, are they in a position to know, are they giving a good argument, and what are they relying on to justify their claim? So, there are many factors (including psychological factors) that drive why people consider some claims implausible or not.
I agree generally with the last part of your statements above, but I would add that justification isn't always about giving good reasons (logic). There are other ways of justifying a belief. For example, sensory experience, testimony, and linguistic training. When I think of reasoning (specifically, correct reasoning), I think of inductive and deductive arguments. But yes, if someone's claim fails to give a good justification, then it's certainly suspect. It must also be pointed out that whether some claim is plausible or not, doesn't equate to the claim necessarily being true or false, it just means they don't have a good justification. And, it's also true that any claim must stand up to scrutiny, so I agree.
Quoting Cabbage Farmer
Yes.
Quoting Cabbage Farmer
In terms of balance, we should allow people, within reason, to freely pursue their intuitions (there are limits to this of course, like resources, etc), this helps to make advances in areas we wouldn't normally pursue. I generally agree with your statements, so for the most part we agree.
What's "...consciousness that isn't conscious of anything[?]" If your conscious, then being aware (in some way) is a necessary feature of consciousness. Maybe you're thinking of someone who is in a coma (or something similar), so they're unconscious, or they're not aware of anything. Sometimes people who we think aren't aware, are indeed aware, as has happened in some cases. Even if a person is in a coma and not "doing anything" that's much different from a person who doesn't exist, whatever "doesn't exist" means in this context (I assume you mean dead.).
Think of the mind as a vessel, its contents are thoughts. The vessel (the mind) contains thoughts, through these thoughts, via metacognition, the mind (the vessel) becomes self-aware. Imagine now, you empty the mind (very Buddhist), empty the vessel of thoughts. The mind is not thinking anything at this point and yet the mind (the vessel) continues to exist. This empty mind (empty vessel; no thinking) is identical to no mind (nonexistent mind). See :point: mushin no shin
[math]Mind - Thoughts = No \space Mind \space (death, \space nonexistence)[/math]
Sure. Doesn't mean I can communicate with them, or visa versa, yet. But conscious? Hell yeah. However, rocks likely have a different value system than I have, and certainly more long term perspective. So I am not sure why they would want to talk to me anyway.
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/948999
Moreover, research is being done all over the world into the experiences of NDErs, including the following universities and disciplines.
The following quote is take from the above link:
"The researchers on the study represent many medical disciplines, including the neurosciences, critical care, psychiatry, psychology, social sciences and humanities, and represent many of the world’s most respected academic institutions including Harvard University, Baylor University, University of California Riverside, University of Virginia, Virginia Commonwealth University, Medical College of Wisconsin, and the Universities of Southampton and London."
There are different levels of consciousness. For example, dreaming, meditative states, DMT states (and other drug induced states) , monkeys, dogs, all the way down to insects. It's not clear how far down the biological life scale this goes, but it's clear that there are levels of consciousness, and different states of consciousness. Based on my research, and the research of others, I believe we are in a dumbed-downed state of consciousness as humans. This isn't our natural state of being or existence. Death returns us to our natural state, which is probably why so many NDErs feel like they're home when they experience an NDE.
We should administer psychoactive drugs (LSD, shrooms, ayahuasca, etc.) to animals too as part of a comprehensive research on mind & consciousness. Odd that no one's tried this before! Imagine what we could learn, eh? (Some) animals may just require the slightest of nudges in a manner of speaking to, well, elicit an awakening. They're capable of amazing mental feats even without any assistance; Youtube and TikTok will attest to that, oui monsieur/mademoiselle?
[quote=Letter to Menoeceus, 3rd century BC]Death, therefore, the most awful of evils, is nothing to us, seeing that, when we are, death is not come, and when death is come, we are not.[/quote]
[quote=The Myth of an Afterlife, 2015]... the greater the damage to the brain, the greater the corresponding damage to the mind. The natural extrapolation from this pattern is all too clear – obliterate brain functioning altogether, and mental functioning too will cease.[/quote]
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/586454
The argument is based on opinion. Why the more stringent restriction on criticism of the argument than the bases on which the argument was built on?
Maybe not to you, personally. Maybe you are boring as a conversationalist, or not sexy enough. I don't know. But one thing is for certain: I have anecdotal evidence of people claiming rocks talking to them. Furthermore, evidence that sheer rock surfaces (at least one evidence) can respond to prayer and let water flow out of the surface.
"NDE" is not the (existential) death-state itself so it's not informative about life after life. If it were death, then (A) it's irreversible brain decomposition would somehow reverse itself and yet no such "reports" are forthcoming and (B) irreversible brain decomposition entails absence of memory-formation and cessation of "experience" of a purported life after life. This 'folk interpretation' of a brain-state phenomenon is absurd (ludicrous) on its face and even worse under both philosophical and scientific scrutiny. I think it's far from "closed-minded" to say so."
I will agree that a near-death experience is not a death state, if we’re using the word death as you’re using it. However, clinical death is another matter, and it’s different from your use, and it’s the use that most use in this context. However, the point of near-death experiences (I’m using bold to over-emphasize the point) is not that they are death experiences, it’s that they are near-death experiences. I would never claim that a near-death experience is the same as death.
I would dispute the claim that NDEs are not informative about the death. And, my inductive argument, which is given at least twice in this thread, explains why it’s informative. Your contention that it’s absurd is going to need a bit more support, to say the least. Here’s why…
Why do I say that the testimonial evidence, and it is evidence, is strong in support of consciousness surviving the death of the body (here I’m using the word death as you’re using it)? Because the same criteria that makes any testimonial evidence strong is the same criteria being applied in my argument.
These criteria are as follows:
1) Number of reports (although numbers are not enough)
2) Variety of reports, variety adds to the strength of the reports.
3) Truth of the reports, which is determined in the following ways:
(a) Since we are dealing with testimonial evidence, in order to know if the testimonial evidence is true, we need corroboration, i.e., we need an objective way to verify some of the testimonial evidence. This helps to establish the truth of the testimonial evidence, and since the evidence is testimonial evidence, it helps to establish the truth of the premises.
(b) Another important factor in determining the truth of testimonial evidence is firsthand testimony, as opposed to hearsay or secondhand testimony. Firsthand testimony is stronger than hearsay or second-hand testimony, all things being equal.
(c) Consistency of the reports is another important criterion in terms of getting to the truth. However, testimonial evidence does not have to be perfectly consistent to be credible. When dealing with a large number of reports you will inevitably find some inconsistency. So, inconsistency itself is not enough to rule out the reports unless the inconsistency is widespread, and of such a number, that it affects the quality and number of consistent reports. So, although consistency is important, it must be looked at in terms of the overall picture.
There are other criteria used in my inductive argument that make a strong inductive argument, but these are enough to make my point. There has been quite a bit of data by scientists that support the consistency of the reports. This consistency has been compared to the consistency of veridical reports and shown to be at least as consistent. Moreover, the memories of these reports tend to be stronger than many of the memories of veridical reports.
To say that this kind of testimonial evidence is just “folk interpretations,” is not to understand the nature of the testimonial evidence. We’re not dealing with a few stories, or a few anecdotes, that haven’t been scrutinized in the ways I’ve outlined. We’re dealing with millions and millions of reports that have come from every culture from around the world; and many thousands of these reports have been analyzed in the way I’ve outlined.
I keep talking about the testimonial evidence, but where is it? It’s on sites devoted to collecting such material, such as https://www.nderf.org/Archives/NDERF_NDEs.html
This is not the only source. There have been hundreds of books published about people’s experiences, and there have been hundreds of scientific articles published from various universities from around the world.
Further data to support my argument.
https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploads/sites/360/2020/11/Nov-2020-NDE-C-CC.pdf
There are other universities from around the world involved, not just the University of Virginia.
All of the testimonial evidence must be looked at in terms of the whole of the reports. Moreover, to say that this evidence is ludicrous or absurd is a comment that is itself ludicrous and absurd. And, given the strength of such evidence, it is absolutely closed-minded to reject it in such absolute and dogmatic terms.
The argument also applies to , who says that this inductive argument is just an opinion.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/727848
Thanks, subscribed. Your veracity in research certainly seems strong, and the out-of-hand dismissals of fundamentalists like @180 Proof only point to the veracity of the research. Keep on. I personally would like to see specific literature that you're referencing for your research. Peer reviewed studies linked, etc.
:smirk: This ad hominem must mean my criticism has struck a raw nerve in you wishful (magical) thinkers. So what kind of "fundie" am I / are we supposed to be, ND?
True, that was an ad hominem, to which I apologize, although I would continue to describe your attacks on Sam's ideas as fundamentalist.
No nerve was struck, and I'm not a "magical {wishful} thinker", although that's certainly an ad hominem on your part.
As to your fundie type, Karen Armstrong describes fundamentalists in "The Battle For God" as those who are disenfranchised from a tradition that is being taken away by the modern world. In your case, what's being taken away is the tradition of the strident materialism of the first half of the century, if I'm not mistaken. :wink:
"A multidisciplinary team of national and international leaders, led by Sam Parnia, MD, PhD, director of the Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Research Program at NYU Langone, have published "Guidelines and standards for the study of death and recalled experiences of death," a multidisciplinary consensus statement and proposed future directions in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.
This study, which examined the accumulated scientific evidence to date, represents the first-ever peer-reviewed consensus statement for the scientific study of recalled experiences surrounding death.
The researchers on the study represent many medical disciplines, including the neurosciences, critical care, psychiatry, psychology, social sciences, and humanities, and represent many of the world's most respected academic institutions including Harvard University, Baylor University, the University of California, Riverside, the University of Virginia, Virginia Commonwealth University, the Medical College of Wisconsin, the University Hospital Southampton, and King's College, London."
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20220413/Researchers-publish-consensus-statement-for-the-study-of-recalled-experiences-surrounding-death.aspx
https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/nyas.14740
I've just read the full article. Perhaps you can clear up what seems, for me, the major stumbling block. Brain cells take hours to die from anoxia. Since NDEs are only recorded in those who've been resuscitated, by definition, their brain cells still had some capacity, they were dead according to cardiopulmonary measures, but there's no reason to assume their neurological system had no function.
Have NDEs been recorded in people inside fMRI, or with EEG?
Quoting Sam26
True, but death/coma is, in these cases, scientifically measured. If we relieve ourselves of the truth of such an assessment, then it's just as easy to say the survivors weren't dead (or near dead). In other words, nothing remotely unusual is happening here at all absent of a scientific expectation of mental activity in anoxic conditions.
All the reports seem to show (I haven't read a lot) is some people report weird experiences in traumatic circumstances. It only becomes noteworthy if we learn these traumatic experiences were all 'near death'. But we only know they were 'near death' using a scientific investigation of their biology.
It seems a little cherry-picking to accept a scientific definition of 'near death' to categorise these events, but then reject it when categorising what counts as neurological activity.
I'm only going to be coming to this thread from time-to-time to add a few comments, then I'm leaving to work on posts to Youtube.
You're asking some good questions, and they deserve a response. It's true that brain cells take hours, and even days to die, so why would we not assume that due to that neurological life that this might account for what's happening in NDEs? I'm assuming that's what your question amounts to. First, we're talking about barely measurable activity, but that's far from the kind of activity needed to have very lucid experiences and memories. You're not suggesting that when the brain essentially shuts down, or is shutting down, that we get the same kind of sensory experiences that we get when the brain is fully functional, are you? The evidence doesn't suggest this at all. Moreover, many of the reports are claiming that the experiences are more lucid, not less lucid than veridical experiences. How would barely functional brain cells account for such activity. There have also been reports where the blood has been completely drained from the brain (trying to get to an aneurysm), and yet they seem to have full blown sensory experiences (Pam's account from Atlanta that happened in the early 90's).
Also, there are other sensory experiences that NDErs are claiming to have that's more in line with an OBE. For example, hearing and seeing what's going on in other parts of the hospital, and reporting on conversations of loved ones miles away. These accounts would suggest that their report of being out-of-the body, is, at the very least plausible. And, when this is put together with all of the reporting as a whole, the evidence seems pretty strong.
Quoting Isaac
Much of this is answered in the literature. We don't need science to tell us that someone is clinically dead if they've been under freezing water for 30 minutes or longer. So, there are many situations where there is no scientific equipment around to measure brain, heart, or breathing activity, and yet we know that they are dead. Now if you don't want to say they are clinically dead, that's fine, but you can't tell me that there's evidence that we experience normal veridical experiences in such a state. In some ways the definition of death is moot, because, as you say, these experiences also happen when people aren't considered dead.
I don't know how you can say there's nothing unusual happening even in these states. People are reporting some very unusual things. They're describing events such as seeing deceased loved ones, having life reviews, traveling through tunnels, being told it's not their time, etc. So, how can you say there is "...nothing unusual happening?" Almost everyone agrees that something unusual is happening.
This doesn't answer everything. I just don't have the time to write a 20 page paper in response to everything, but they are good questions. This will be my last post for a while. Thanks for responding.
Thanks for the response. As you're busy I'll pick up only what I think is the most salient point for any time you want to re-look at this.
Memories do not form in real time, we can recall events in milliseconds which feel to us as if they took minutes (we have recall of recall - you can test the experience by trying to recall a dream). We also make narratives from very fragmented sensory data by simply substituting reasonable priors for missing information. Putting these two things together, it's possible that memories are rapidly formed in the first few milliseconds of being revived using the fragmented sensory data still entering the primary cortices of the brain during anoxia.
I agree, memories take time to form, but you're not going to tell me that as we're being revived from, say, 10, 20, 30 minutes and longer (some shorter times also), and in some cases with no brain activity, that we're having vivid sensory experiences (seeing and hearing) and vivid memories. What you're doing is speculating, there's no evidence that you can get these kinds of experiences after this length of time. Is it possible? Sure, it's possible, but because something is possible that gives you no reason to believe it.
Also, the memories and the narratives of these people are just too consistent. And if you compare NDE memories with everyday memories they're just as vivid, probably more vivid, than our everyday memories. I don't see that it's likely that a brain that is shutting down, or a brain that is showing no signs of life is going to produce such memories. I also don't see that's it's likely that a brain that's being revived is going to go several minutes back in time, even longer, and form vivid memories.
It's not so much that people think it's been several minutes when it's only been seconds, it's that when you compare the times of when conversations took place, and when the brain was inactive, there should have been no way the brain formed such vivid memories of conversations and other activities. The times don't match your example.
Thanks for the response.
I'm not sure I immediately see the problem, but I'm aware that I don't have as exhaustive a knowledge of the field as you do. The first thing I'd want to know, if such statistics are available, is what kind of proportions we're talking about in terms of who has a 'vivid' NDE and who doesn't. I ask because the degree to which I'd find it surprising would depend on how prevalent it is. It's surprising to win the lottery, but chance dictates that someone will.
If (big if) our brains are collecting piecemeal data from the environment during anoxia, then it would indeed be surprising if the majority of people roused from anoxia were then able to reconstruct, from that drip-feed of data, an accurate and vivid account.
It would not, however, be all that surprising to find a very rare, very low frequency occurrence of people just happening to strike gold and construct a vivid account from the barest crumbs. It's not impossible, just improbable, so the numbers matter.
If you have numbers to hand (vivid NDE frequency over all patients spending time in anoxia), that would be interesting.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination
I will next be doing videos on Wittgenstein's On Certainty.
These videos you are posting are containing additional claims, not evidence that can be objectively evaluated.
-I guess we agree on that. They shouldn't discount testimonial evidence as "not evidence". They are insufficient evidence until they are evaluated. Those huge studies and Cognitive Sciecne put to the test those testimonial evidence and rendered them bad evidence
Quoting Sam26
-Correct. I am not going to watch a video presenting claims that are in direct conflict with our current scientific epistemology. I am willing to read a scientific paper that challenges our epistemology through objective evidence...but not videos like this one( I am sure I have watched them before and I wont do it again).
Objective evidence is a PRAGMATIC Necessity in our methods of evaluation. ITs the reason why we don't have many conflicting schools of sciences. The lack of the criterion of objectivity is the reason why we have more than 4.300 conflicting religious dogmas and 160+ different Spiritual worldviews making all kind of supernatural claims.
Quoting Sam26
-You are using Supernatural Speculations by some "Academics", not Academic Epistemology. None of those claims are part of our Epistemology in Cognitive science or Neuroscience.
Quoting Sam26
-ok......well I don't need to make any arguments especially when we deal with scientific knowledge. I can send you a tone of Academic courses proving the claim in your title wrong. Can you do that? of course not...
Quoting Sam26
-There are great Academics Moocs on the subject. Nowhere in those courses you will find scientists entertaining the claims you are presenting because no objective evidence to support them...only stories of people interpreting their experiences based on their beliefs.
Lets return to my initial objection about your OP.
The title of this thread is "Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body" and you go on cherry picking "evidence" that are testimonial and you ignore all the scientific body of evidence.This is dishonest. Then you declare testimonial evidence to be "academic" when Science rejects subjective opinions by default!
Ignoring credible epistemology makes your claims pseudo philosophical.
:clap: :100:
This summary observation is very much worth repeating.
— Sam26
-Correct. I am not going to watch a video presenting claims that are in direct conflict with our current scientific epistemology. I am willing to read a scientific paper that challenges our epistemology through objective evidence...but not videos like this one( I am sure I have watched them before and I wont do it again).[/quote]
I'm inclined not to respond to this because you've already decided without looking at my argument, that the argument is in direct conflict with the epistemology of science, and therefore must be false. First, you act as though the science of consciousness is settled, which is incorrect. It's settled for some, but it sure isn't settled for others (other scientists), and still others are on the fence. The only thing that matters are the arguments (the logic), are they good inductive arguments or not. The epistemology of science is mostly based on logical (mostly inductive) reasoning based on the data (data here is used in a very broad sense including mathematics), and the observations (sensory experience) of various experiments. However, epistemology is much broader than just science, i.e., I don't need science to confirm many of our knowledge claims. I can use an inductive argument to reason to a conclusion without any use of science, and know that the conclusion follows. I explain this in my thread, and in my videos. I also explain in this thread how it is that we can have NDEs that are verified objectively, i.e., corroborated or verified testimonial evidence.
It's true that science generally adds to the certainty of our arguments, but it's not as though we can't know things apart from science. By the way, there is scientific data that supports much of my argument. There is science being conducted all over the world on this subject. However, I don't have to rely on science to reach my conclusion, even if it helps.
Also, there are no other videos like mine, so to assume that my videos are like other videos is just false. My video takes an epistemological approach to the subject based on different methods of justification. Anyone who takes the approach that you are taking isn't serious about challenging an argument. It's more likely that they are just giving a biased opinion with the words science and epistemology thrown into to make it sound intellectual, but it's far from that, and far from good philosophy.
lol You can't seem to think for yourself. All you know how to do is quote other arguments or other people. Don't you have any arguments?
So, let's see, cherry picking the evidence according to you is ignoring what? What in particular am I ignoring that explains these NDEs. I have read many of the counter-arguments, and I've addressed many of the counter-arguments. For example, hallucinations, lack of oxygen to the brain, drugs, dreams, memory explanations, arguments that the brain is the only source of consciousness, that consciousness is an illusion, on and on. Many of these I've addressed, and none of these explain what's happening when for example, someone is clinically dead, the blood is drained from the brain with no measurable brain activity, no heartbeat, no breathing, etc., yet they are able to describe in detail what's going on around their body and to their body. Moreover, their are too many cases that are very similar to this to ignore because you in your infinite knowledge deem it impossible. It can't be, says, , the science I rely on just can't be wrong.
I'm not cherry picking anything. It's just your way of trying to make someone look bad because you don't like what their saying. If you had a decent argument, then okay, I would say we just disagree, but you don't, and Nickolasgaspar is arguing without knowing my argument. I suggest you both take some basic philosophy, and learn how to respond to arguments.
Happy Hunting
:roll: You know I do ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/776786 (criticism posted above which still stands)
from 2022 ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/762279 (an argument from a recent "NDE" which you could not counter)
I also added a link to my argument which was a peered reviewed paper headed by Dr./PhD Sam Parnia which was an agreement among many academics from around the world stating that these death experiences aren't hallucinations.
It's interesting that you say my reasoning is quite poor, which would mean that all the A's I got on my logic exams, must have been a fluke. Or, maybe I just forgot all the symbolic logic and modal logic I studied. Possible, but not likely. Moreover, if you're going to say that my reasoning is faulty you have to show where the argument is flawed, where the premises are false, or at least give an argument that puts the premises in doubt.
Second, your statement that, "What you fail to consider or recognize is that every life from its birth to its death is a "near-death experience" because we are mortal beings." Here, all you're doing is defining life as a near-death experience because all of us are mortal. This is not how the term is used in the context of my argument, and virtually no one I know, even critics of NDEs would talk like this. If this is supposed to be a premise to your argument you're going to have to do a bit better, to say the least.
I'm not going to respond to the rest of your so-called argument because it demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the concepts involved. All you're doing is re-defining the terms to fit your idea of reality. Let's just agree to disagree.
I agree that it's an attempt at an argument, but it's a poor attempt at best.
Happy Hunting
-I should have done the same with your OP because you already decided to ignore the epistemology that really matters and instead present fringe supernatural claims as if it is science or legit philosophical conclusions.
But I didn't because this discussion will benefit by standers and those sitting on the fence.
Not wasting time in material containing arguments without objective facts and being in conflict with Science and its principles is the wise thing to do. If you could state your argument and point to the body of objective evidence, that would be a different story. Subjective takes of dying brains is not the best way to reach a conclusion.
There isn't any "issue with objectivity". ITs the most credible and successful criterion we currently have in epistemology. Objective Independent verification is what elevates our standards of evaluation and successfully demarcates Knowledge from Nonsense. Its better to keep some conclusions "waiting" in line due to the lack of objectivity than to pollute our epistemology with nonsense.
Quoting Sam26
-Strawman. I am only pointing out that you are ignoring the current paradigm of Science and our current scientific frameworks on the subject. NOTHING is settled in science, even its principles (of Methodological Naturalism)...but you will need Objective evidence to change anything, not hearsay.
Quoting Sam26
-I don't mind people sharing different beliefs, what I do mind is when they share their own facts and they ignore our current established epistemology.
Quoting Sam26
_Correct. Pseudo Philosophical interpretations on consciousness are not acceptable arguments. People having an experience they can't understand ... doesn't make magic (floating minds) true!
Quoting Sam26
-Correct, but when two claims compete on explaining the same phenomenon, Science is the way to go, more systematic, more methodical and its doesn't make up invisible entities to explain the phenomenon.
Quoting Sam26
-You literally stated that you are going to arrive to a conclusion while ignoring the most methodological and systematic facts available to us....that is irrational. Your epistemology SHOULD include everything that is available us and remove those which do not meet the highest standards of systematicity
Quoting Sam26
-Yes you explained it and it is wrong. You ALWAYS should work with the best available epistemology either it originates from science or not. NO , NDEs haven't been verified objectively There are cases where we can't explain the phenomenon (and the answer is "WE don't know) but most of the cases are easily explained without invoking magic. What is suspicious is, during a controlled setup we are unable those testimonies.
Quoting Sam26
-Sure but that is not an excuse to accept supernatural claims. Our standards of evaluation should be equally high and we shouldn't accept Magic as an answer. We are not going to change the Scientific Paradigm of Methodological Naturalism for a Death Denying ideology of flying minds not being contigent to biological brains with an expiration date.
Quoting Sam26
No there isn't any. There are data with really bad and unfounded interpretations on non scientific principles(supernatural) and that is not science.
Quoting Sam26
-IF your conclusion was sound, then science would've accept it. The problem is not that your conclusions are a product of a non scientific methodology, but they are in conflict with what we know and can verify about how the world works. We don't observe Advance properties manifesting in reality out of thin air. We have done the same error in the past again and again, making up magical entities to explain a phenomenon. ITs not wise to keep repeating that mistake.
Quoting Sam26
-The issue is with your principles. Supernaturalism NEEDs to be demonstrated before being used as an answer. Advanced Properties don't just emerge in nature, they are contingent to physical functions.
Gods, spirits, minds etc are not legit explanations. They are lazy attempts to address mysteries by appealing to bigger mysteries.
Quoting Sam26
-The argument is over 35 years ago. The evidence on conscious states being the function of the brain is overwhelming. We have technical applications and surgery protocols and diagnostics and medicinal protocols that are designed to treat the tissue of the brain for all mental "mulfunctions"...none of them are designed to tread minds in space.
Quoting Sam26
-if your argument included our current epistemology and objective evidence why it is wrong (not because some patients with a dying brain had an experience),then I would accept the unbiased nature of your claims. The issue with your supernatural conclusions is that they are untestable unfalsifiable, can't be used to produce technical or commercial applications and they just promote a new mystery as an answer. Its not rational or philosophical.
I will try to introduce some meaning to this discussion.
You are making claims and arriving at conclusions based on Testimonies WITHOUT first providing a functioning definition of what "Consciousness" means to you.
A definition should include a description of the Property(Phenomenon in question) plus the ontology (mechanisms, type of substance,process) of it.
Do you have one?
I will present the current scientific Definition and Description of science about the Property of consciousness and we can go from there. We can compare them and see whose framework introduces unnecessary entities and whose has an additional instrumental value.
Definition.
"Consciousness is an arousal and awareness of environment and self, which is achieved through action of the ascending reticular activating system (ARAS) on the brain stem and cerebral cortex "
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3722571/
So this the biological process that enables our ability to be conscious of stimuli(internal or external).
Lets now take a look at the brain mechanisms responsible for the content of our conscious states.
The Central lateral thalamus allows different parts of the brain responsible for Symbolic language/Meaning, Memory, Pattern Recognition, Intelligence,feelings, Previous Experiences, Problem solving etc to communicate and introduce content in our conscious state and process any new stimuli.
https://www.inverse.com/mind-body/tiny-brain-area-could-enable-consciousness
https://www.inverse.com/mind-body/neurobiology-of-consciousness-study-explained
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02091/full
IT goes without saying, physical damages (injury, intoxication etc) in the above areas affect our conscious states or even terminate those states is the damage is serious and extensive.
That's not right, and it's really important. A definition sets the limit of the application of a term, and it enables you to be able to use a word in a conversation, hopefully. It picks out, as efficiently as possible, the thing you are talking about. A definition typically contains far less information than a theory. What you are asking for with this is a definition plus a theory.
Your 'definition':
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
...is a theory. The reason I know it is a theory is because I disagree with it, YET I still know how to use the word 'consciousness'. There's few things that piss me off more than someone with a theory insisting that I must agree with them because that's what a word just means!
That's not to say that the line between theory and definition is always easily drawn, I accept that. I made a thread about it here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11467/poll-definition-or-theory
I do not see a meaningful conversation happening with you bert...
There is enough in this thread and videos to address almost all of the criticisms. Obviously much more could be added to address other questions, but I choose to move on. Thanks for all the responses, even if there is disagreement.
Happy Hunting
There is a really easy way to convince people of your beliefs being scientific.
There is a huge online Data Base of Neuroscience's publications called:
https://neurosciencenews.com/
You can go there and find a publication which verifies your claims....just one paper verifying your ontology will do!
I guess good luck with that?
You are bailing out the moment I pointed out the method by which you can demonstrate the academic validity or your claims....why is that?
You are promoting a strawman that science explains testimonials for NDEs as shared hallucinations. That is wrong. Science's explanation is based on the fact of a malfunctioning brain deprived of oxygen enabling an experience where the individual interprets its based on its cultural background. This is why Christians tend to see their mythological heroes while other religious people agree with their iconography and doctrines.
So all 3 premises on your first arguments go out of the window.
Are the res of your arguments of similar quality????
Btw we do have documented mass hallucinations or better mass hysteria where member of crowds adopt the narrative of their leader.
Again, right in the beginning there is a huge error.
You define your goals, but in your third point you are committing an error that ALL philosophers and scientists SHOULD avoid at any cost.
You state: "To leave people with a sense of hope that there is something more , something beyond this life."
Long story short you SHOULD NEVER include in your goals the position you are trying to prove !!!! That's a red flag.
That should only follow from the evidence and should only be in your conclusion sir!!!!!! Of course you are going to steer everything to point at your goal.
Your first two goals are neutral....your last goal should be too.
Your logic and philosophy is really bad Sam!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDNGOwC3AFM
:up:
:eyes: Well, sir, "alien abduction" videos are more my jam; "haunted house" "astral projection" "reincarnation" or "perpetual motion machine" Youtubes not so much.
Anyway.
Resuscitation is not resurrection. "NDE" presupposes resurrection and yet none of the claimants, in fact, have been resurrected. Brain-death has not occurred until it is irreversible; ergo the "D" in "NDE" is nothing but an ad hoc ex post facto confabulation (à la false memory) of some non-ordinary mental state(s) of an unresurrected, still-living brain. "See the light," blind man. :yawn:
There are some that think that Sam's getting old and he wants to latch onto these beliefs as a way of having hope, nothing could be further from the truth. I've believed in these experiences for over 45 years, so it has very little to do with getting older. It's just that I've been studying these experiences more since I've been retired, but they have always interested me.
If you have even a slight interest in these experiences this is a good video to listen to.
(Answers to Life’s Most Perplexing Questions)
That’s right, I’m going to give you the answers to many of the questions that are asked about life and this reality. I know it seems rather arrogant to think that I have some of the answers, but it comes from much of the evidence that I’ve given in this thread, and much more evidence that I haven’t given. Much of what I answer goes against the standard model of reality, including many of the models of consciousness, and who we are as individuals.
These questions and answers are in no particular order, and some of these answers are only partially answered. No one has the complete answers to all these questions.
I’m writing the answers as they come to mind.
1) What is this reality?
We are in a kind of holographic simulation.
2) Who created this reality?
We participated in creating this reality.
3) Is there a God?
There is no God as most religions think of God, but there probably is something akin to the concept. To say that God is love is probably closest to the truth. However, most religions distort this picture with other beliefs.
4) What is at the base of reality?
Consciousness or mind is at the base of reality. We are all part of that consciousness, and yet we also maintain our individuality.
5) Where is our origin?
Our home is definitely not here in this simulation, it’s in the base reality and the immediate surrounding reality or realities that are not part of any simulation, of which there are many (many simulations).
6) Do we choose to come here?
Yes! We chose to come here. In fact, we plan much of our lives. Moreover, we choose our parents, we choose the kind of body we’ll have, and we choose many of the hardships we’ll experience. By the way, this is why there is no problem of evil, because we know what we are getting into before we come. Evil is a construct of this reality, and probably other created realities, but it’s not part of the base reality.
7) Why did we come here?
There is no one answer to this question, but there are several very general answers to this question. We come here to have human experiences and to learn from these experiences. We come not only for what we will learn from the experiences, but what we will help others to learn from the experiences. Much of this is still a mystery. We definitely don’t come here to have fun. The idea that the goal of life is to be happy is misguided. Life is meant to be a struggle. It’s meant, at least for most, to be difficult and challenging. The struggle is mostly with yourself. There is much more that can be said about this, but I’m trying to keep the answers short.
8) Who are we?
One thing seems certain: we are far greater beings than we realize. We are beings with great knowledge and power, not gods, but much greater than this human version of ourselves.
9) Is death anything to fear?
Definitely not, you are simply returning to your home or your original form.
10) Why don’t I remember who I am?
Probably because it would interfere with your learning experience here, and with the learning experience of others.
11) Do we choose when we will die, that is, is there a set time to die?
Yes. Although it’s not set in stone, it’s somewhat flexible for some. For others, when your time is up, it’s up, it’s agreed upon before you come here.
12) Can prayer alter someone’s death time?
In some cases, yes, in most cases, no.
13) Can prayer alter your life?
Yes, but as in the case of praying to save someone’s life, it just depends on what agreements were made before coming here. Also, you may only have access to a certain number of interventions in this life through prayer. On the other hand, no amount of prayer will change some things.
14) Will AI become conscious?
No. Consciousness is not composed of the material of this simulated reality. The only way something in this reality can become conscious is if consciousness enters it. In the same way we enter this body.
15) Can we access other realities?
Yes. There are several ways, including NDEs, DMT, mushrooms, meditation, the other side communicating to us, and deathbed visions.
16) Do animals have an afterlife?
Yes.
17) Do we sometimes see our dead loved ones?
Yes. In fact, this is probably why the disciples thought Jesus rose from the dead. They had visions after his death.
18) Do our loved ones know what’s happening here?
Yes, they are always with you. Remember we are all part of the same consciousness, so they have access to everything that’s going on. We don’t have the same access because we are a dumbed-down version of ourselves with very limited knowledge.
19) Are there children in the afterlife?
No. We only experience being a child in this simulated reality, or some other simulated reality.
20) Have we experienced other lives?
Yes. Some of us have experienced many lives in this reality and in other realities.
21) Are we eternal beings?
Yes. We probably will always exist.
22) Does evil exist?
Yes and no. In this reality evil surely exists as a concept describing certain actions, but in ultimate reality there is no evil, no sin, no damnation, no devil, and no demons. No harm can ultimately come to you. Sure, you can experience pain and harm here, but it’s just temporary, a function of this reality; and much of what you experience in terms of pain and harm is something you knew about before coming.
23) Is what people see in an NDE the afterlife?
Yes and no. In other words, what people see in their NDE is sort of an in between, viz., where we go after we immediately die. It’s like going to the train station, you’re between destinations. It’s a place you can return from, i.e., you can still be connected to your body while being there. There is a further boundary, where if you cross that boundary, you can’t return, it’s often encountered in NDES. It’s the place where you are completely disconnected from your body. People often see a silver cord connecting them to their bodies. Once the cord is broken, then you are probably severed from this simulation. It’s like being unplugged. If you’re still plugged in, there’s time to return to the body and continue living.
24) Do miraculous healings occur?
Yes. Some healings are seen in the recovery of people who have had serious illnesses that led to their NDE. In fact, sometimes doctors are guided by beings on the other side to help in their recovery.
25) Are the people in my life, viz., family, friends, enemies, and acquaintances part of who I’m supposed to interact with while I’m here?
Yes. Many, if not all of them, were part of the plan before coming here. We all play a kind of role with each other, but it’s an important role. Even those whom you detest are playing a role, for you, and for them.
26) What about suicide?
If you take your life, you are interrupting the agreement you made before coming here. Moreover, you may have to come back and live your life all over again with many of the same problems, possibly worse problems. So, suicide is not an answer to escaping the problems of life.
27) What is the most important part of life?
Love, it’s at the heart of reality. It’s not like the religious love you hear about, viz., I love you, but if you reject me, you’re going to hell forever.
28) Do we have free will?
Yes, but limited free will. There are also those things that are deterministic, i.e., those things that are determined before you come into this life.
29) Does time pass differently in the afterlife?
Yes. What may be only a few minutes or a few seconds here, maybe much longer there. Time passes, seemingly, at a faster rate there, or at the very least it passes in a non-linear way. The only way there would be no time is if we’re experiencing everything at once, including being everywhere at once. I’m not sure if that’s possible.
30) Does coming here help us in some way?
This question is related to the question, “Why do we choose to come here?” It helps us to advance in experiential learning or knowledge in ways we won’t understand until we return home. My speculation is that we also add to the experiential knowledge of the core consciousness, and that experiential knowledge can be accessed by all of us. There is no end to what we can experience. If the core mind can imagine it, it can create it, and then, we can experience it.
31) Are all realities as difficult as this reality?
No. Some realities are probably fun, and some realities are probably even more difficult to experience than this reality. If you wanted to experience hell you could probably do that. However, whether you do is up to you. Some people are warned about coming here. They’re told that it’s very difficult. It’s not for the faint of heart.
32) Last question is speculative, but very possible. Is everyone you see in this reality real? In other words, are some human bodies just NPCs?
If this reality is an advanced holographic program of sorts, then it’s very possible that not everyone you see is real or conscious. Maybe there are billions of NPCs. If this is true, and it may be, then it’s very possible to create AI that appears conscious in almost every way, but in fact is not really conscious. Maybe the only way to know would be to look at reality from outside the program.
33) Do we survive death? Yes, but this human self ends when this body dies. In other words, this body is like an avatar, and when the avatar is destroyed, we return to our base self. There is continuity of memory, experiences, and experiential knowledge, but the base self is a much higher being (more knowledgeable, higher sensory awareness, more powerful, much more loving, etc, etc.).
1) validity
2) soundness
3) cogency
The criteria of a good inductive argument are the following:
1) number
2) variety
3) scope of the conclusion
4) truth of the premises
5) cogency
The argument in this thread was inductive and followed the criteria of a good inductive argument, i.e., except one. The argument isn't going to be cogent for everyone. Cogency simply means the argument is known to be true to the person or persons that hear the argument. In other words, just because an argument follows logically and you know the premises are true, it doesn't follow that everyone who hears the argument is going to know what you know. So, it won't be cogent for them.
A friend of mine gives the following example (Dr. Byron I. Bitar):
Premise 1: The base of a souffle is a roux.
Premise 2: This salmon dish is a souffle.
Conclusion: Hence, the base of this salmon dish is a roux.
Here's the problem in a nutshell. Even though the deductive argument above is sound and the conclusion follows, that doesn't mean that everyone who hears the argument will understand that the conclusion follows. You have to know what a roux and a souffle is in order for the argument to be compelling for you. If you don't know the concepts (or enough about the concepts), then you won't know if the argument is a good argument. The person who hears the argument has to know the premises are true, but how can they know that if they don't understand the premises.
What each of us knows varies from person to person, which is why even arguments that are perfectly sound can fail to convince people. A good argument takes into account what people may or may not know. For e.g., a scientist may know X because they've done the appropriate experiments, but you aren't necessarily going to know what he knows because you haven't studied what he's studied. So even a good argument given by a scientist may not convince you. This happens all the time. Most of us when presenting an argument fail to understand the importance of cogency in the arguments we give. Thus the argument fails.
My point is that even though I know the conclusion of my argument follows from the evidence, others who have not studied the appropriate data aren't necessarily going to know that the conclusion follows or that the premises are true. So the argument won't be cogent for them. There will be people who do understand the premises, and still disagree, but that's a different problem. The point I'm making here is about cogency.
So if my argument is not good or is weak it's because it's not cogent for many people. For e.g., they may not understand that the argument is more than anecdotal evidence, or they may not understand enough about hallucinations to rule them out as a criticism. I've tried to make the argument cogent for everyone by giving as much information as I could, but often this is not enough.
See you in the afterlife. :grin:
NB: Gnostic / living-in-a-simulation fairytales are merely variations on the very ancient "dream within a dream" placebo-fetish (aided and abetted by cross-cultural hallucinogenic & entheogenic – or apoxic / anaesthetic – experiences). As the Buddha teaches, it makes no sense – wastes time and effort – to wonder or fixate on where the flame goes when a candle blows/burns-out. Walking the path – living one's life (with courage & dignity as an end in itself) – is the destination, not some ... "afterlife".
:clap: As Mark Twain also pointed out, such is as pointless, as wondering about your personal state, "beforelife."
Hi Sam
As you say. the amount of testimony to be found at all times and places over the last three thousand years is astonishing. A minimum condition for trusting the testimony, however, is that we trust the testifier and the problem in this particular area of knowledge is that one has to know a lot about it before one can make a judgement. A practitioner who has the benefit of some degree of realization will know who to trust, but the common man (I include most philosophers under this heading since few study these things) has no way to judge. .
For this reason I would come at the issue from another angle. If you study metaphysics you'll find logical arguments that make the case in a far less ignorable way. and then you can link them up to the testimony to make it more plausible.
This is not the pace, but it is not difficult to show that there is only one metaphysical theory that survives analysis, or to show that this is the theory endorsed by the Buddha, Lao Tzu and the Indian Upanishads. The complication is only that they say there is no consciousness after death, but what they mean is no intentional subject-object consciousness. It can be demonstrated in logic that the only global theory that works is one for which consciousness (of a more profound kind) is fundamental and reality is a unity.
It completely baffles me why philosophy students are not taught this. It's hardly rocket science. Or, it would were it not that not ideology such a potent force in the philosophy department. .
And comparison with Doris Lessing is a great compliment in my little world.
I think the evidence is overwhelming, so for me I know there is an afterlife. It's an epistemological answer. I'm not guessing, surmising, giving an opinion, speculating, or expressing an intuition. Moreover, if after looking at the evidence, you still can't draw the conclusion, then I think you're to wedded to a particular worldview, and not wedded to facts. You're giving to much weight to the materialist view. The materialist view fails on so many fronts it's difficult for me to understand how anyone with an ounce of intellect can seriously believe that what we are observing is the end of the story. We're constantly discovering new things about the universe, so in my mind it doesn't pay to be as dogmatic as you are. What you're espousing sounds more like religious dogma. Could I be wrong in my conclusion, sure, but it's quite unlikely.
Quoting 180 Proof
The 'flame going out' is a reference to Nirv??a, the ending of that process, but until it is realised, the Buddha taught that beings will wander endlessly in sa?s?ra. Accordingly Buddhism has elaborate doctrines of the afterlife, at least some of which have seeped into popular culture, such as the Tibetan Book of the Dead, and it is certainly mistaken to claim that Buddhism does not accept there being a life beyond this one. (An contemporary example would be A Guided Tour of Hell, by Sam Bercholz, who founded the large Buddhist publishing house Shambhala, and whose NDE following heart surgery forms the basis of that book.)
Actually, there is far more of a vested – self-flattering – interest in im-materialism (i.e. spiritualism, idealism) than "materialism", as you say, which is much too impersonal and mechanical for any sort of emotional investment, or personal bias.
I don't know about that. Plenty have philosophers seem to have become quite invested in the idea that materialism is what allows them to look the void in the eye and scream their power into it. How can we be Nietzschean overcomers without a void to overcome? How else can we congratulate ourselves over being good when there is no Good? What is the point of the Marxist struggle if we get a greater reward in the afterlife?
There seems to be lots of validation that comes from materialism, and people certainly seem emotionally invested it, to embrace it as dogma, etc. Plus, there is always the emotional motivation of simply being opposed to alternatives; same as in politics, "I don't know about my own party, but I sure do hate the other ones."
Point being, when dogmatically embraced, the dogmatism seems as corrosive.
Quoting Sam26
You have not provided any publicly accessible evidence or sound arguments for an "afterlife" which hold up under even the most rudimentary scrutiny. What you think you "know", sir, is unwarranted, and therefore, dogmatic at best or delusional at worse. Your threads on this topic conspicuously corroborate my criticisms – and I have never based my rejection of your claims on "materialism" but on the demonstable insufficiency of your claims themselves.
Might be true if the concept of matter was coherent, which it isn't, or science could explain how matter gives rise to consciousness, which it can't.
In any case, the point was your reference to Quoting 180 Proof because you were mis-quoting. The passage you're referring to about 'the candle being extinguished', was in a dialogue between the Buddha and a follower, about what happens to the Buddha's consciousness/mind after enlightenment. That's what cannot be speculated about. It's got nothing to do with Buddhist beliefs about the afterlife, so it's misleading in the context in which it was given.
:cheer:
I don't understand this reply.
How do you KNOW this?
A bridge too far! Have you mused in any way regarding the form, structure, place, physics, biology, chemistry etc of this afterlife?
Do you propose for example that one of the physical rules of this afterlife you suggest, is that those who experience it, are unable to communicate in any effective way, with us?
Do you propose that everything that's alive and dies on this little mote of dust planet, experiences an afterlife?
Was there an afterlife before humans existed on Earth?
Did the dinosaurs experience an afterlife? Are they still alive in this afterlife?
How about the other early hominids, such as the Neanderthals or Homo Habilis etc?
Do you muse about how this afterlife functions as a 'society?'
Can you offer some of your musings regarding 'a typical day/duration in the life of an afterlifer?'
Was there no afterlife during the at least 8 billion years that there was no Earth or could other aliens have made up the afterlife and still do contribute to the afterlife population (which must be enormous by now)
Do you think you die again, at some point in the afterlife?
An eternity of afterlife could become torturous no? Immortals can't even kill themselves, ever, that choice has been removed!!!
I am bemused by your claim that you think the evidence of an afterlife is overwhelming?
I have many, many, many more questions about the nature of the afterlife experience but if your evidence is overwhelming then you must feel quite confident that you can convince the majority of the human race that the afterlife is fact. What demonstrations can you offer?
Just because the evidence is overwhelming doesn't mean you can convince anyone or everyone of the conclusions that logically follow. If you had understood what I said about cogency this question wouldn't arise. As for my demonstrations, as you say, I've given them in the inductive argument. I guess you don't understand inductive arguments or you would've asked me this question. You can disagree with the argument, but the argument speaks for itself. If the argument is weak, then the conclusion probably doesn't follow, if it is strong (as I suppose it is), then the conclusion does follow.
Why do you think that is the case? It seems to me that the only question about the afterlife, you are convinced by 'overwhelming evidence,' that you can answer, is that it exists.
99.9% of all species that have existed on Earth, are extinct, but do they all still exist in an afterlife? Or is it just humans that were born after ....... BCE? CE?
Quoting Sam26
Can you offer any conclusions from your musings regarding the nature and structure of the afterlife?
It seems to me that becomes your burden, based on your claims.
Quoting Sam26
Well, I personally find [math]{E=M{C^2}}[/math] very convincing, as it demonstrably works.
Do you think such as NDE's are as robust as [math]{E=M{C^2}}[/math]?
Quoting Sam26
Can you help me understand what I have not so far understood about the term 'cogency' in the context you employ it? Cogency: the quality of being clear, logical, and convincing; lucidity.
Quoting Sam26
How about this:
An inductive argument is not capable of delivering a binary, true-or-false conclusion. This is because such arguments are often based on circumstantial evidence and a limited number of samples. Because of this limitation, an inductive argument can be disproven by a single negative or weak sample.
Quoting Sam26
So if I argue that unicorns and fairies exist because I communicated with both, during my own NDE then they must both exist as my argument speaks for itself (you know that is a logical fallacy, right?)
I think you are overburdening the law of identity:
From Wiki:
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz claimed that the law of identity, which he expresses as "Everything is what it is", is the first primitive truth of reason.
Quoting Sam26
Well, at least you are willing to offer readers the choice between these two conclusions, even though you try to burden the choice you make available with (as I suppose it is).
Is it not easy to work out that materialism is nonsense? I've never come across a materialist who claims it is comprehensible, Most are happy to concede it requires a miracle to avoid being paradoxical and we all know it explains exactly nothing,
Approximately all philosophers conclude that extreme metaphysical position are logically indefensible, as is explained by Kant, Bradley, Nagarjuna, Russell, Carnap et al, and materialism is one of them. If materialism is true then the world in paradoxical and incomprehensible and we might as well all pack up and go home.
It is also a basic fact that disinterested philosophers, while they may take them into account, cannot rely on other people's reports of NDEs, inner realisations and enlightenment. Some sort of demonstrable argument and proof is required.
The starting place for an investigation should surely be the established and inarguable facts, and the first and foremost of these is that all positive metaphysical positions are logically indefensible and can be reduced to absurdity. This disposes of most theories and ideas and clears a path for further investigation.
It''s very weird that academic philosophers claim philosophy is incomprehensible and the mystics claim the opposite, and the former cannot refute the latter. Human beings are are odd lot. .
Naturalism and materialism are very similar imo. I note the difference, as proposed by such as:
'Naturalism and materialism are two philosophical concepts that differ in their approach to explaining the world. Naturalism states that the world can be explained entirely by physical, natural phenomena or laws, while materialism argues that all that exists is matter, only matter is real and so the world is just physical. The difference between the two is that materialism makes an argument about the ontology of the universe, while naturalism takes a premise (effectively that of materialism) to make an argument on how science/philosophy should function'
According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, materialism and naturalism are metaphysical positions. But, for me, that seems to clash with what science is. Science is the study of the natural, material universe, is it not? Physics used to be called natural philosophy, yes? But Physics is not metaphysics. Where Is my thinking wrong here?
I have no academic qualifications in philosophy, so perhaps those who do, can easily clear this up for me? @180 Proof? @Fooloso4?
I typed "is materialism considered an extreme metaphysical position?" into google and got:
Materialism is not considered an extreme metaphysical position. It is now the epistemological position that the methods of physics are such that they will finally map the structure of the universe. Materialism is a metaphysical thesis in the sense that it tells us about the nature of the world.
I asked chat GPT the same question and got:
[i]The classification of materialism as an extreme metaphysical position depends on the context and the perspective of the person evaluating it. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that deals with the fundamental nature of reality, including questions about the nature of existence, substance, and the relationship between mind and matter.
Materialism is the philosophical view that everything that exists can be explained in terms of matter and physical processes. According to materialism, the physical world is the only reality, and mental states or consciousness are by-products of the physical processes in the brain. This view rejects the existence of any supernatural or non-physical entities.
Some people may consider materialism an extreme metaphysical position because it excludes any consideration of non-material or spiritual aspects of reality. From a religious or spiritual perspective, materialism can be seen as reductionist or overly simplistic, as it does not account for phenomena that may fall outside the scope of the physical world.
However, from a scientific and naturalistic standpoint, materialism is often seen as a rational and valid approach. Science relies on empirical evidence and observable phenomena, which align with the materialist perspective. Many scientists and philosophers argue that the materialist worldview has led to significant advancements in our understanding of the natural world and has provided a reliable framework for scientific inquiry.
Ultimately, whether materialism is considered an extreme metaphysical position or not depends on one's philosophical, religious, or scientific perspective. Different philosophical schools and belief systems will have diverse views on this matter. It is essential to consider various perspectives and engage in open discussions to understand the nuances of different metaphysical positions.[/i]
I therefore consider your view that materialism/naturalism are extreme metaphysical philosophies, very much contested.
Consciousness is part of body, like lungs are or feet.
Why do I think that there are many questions that we can't answer? It seems that that is the case with many subjects. Our knowledge is just incomplete, which is why knowledge keeps evolving. For example. in the past people had little knowledge about plant life, but that didn't mean that the flower didn't exist. It just meant what little knowledge they had was incomplete.
If you read my thread, then you would know that the point of my argument was to give testimonial evidence that there is an afterlife. My inductive argument was not meant to go further than that. However, in parts of the thread I do point out that there are other conclusions that one can infer.
I don't know if all species go to an afterlife, probably not. It seems that certain animals do though. This question goes beyond the scope of my conclusion, not that the question isn't interesting. The answer to this question may have a lot to do with how you view this reality. It's my belief that much of this reality isn't real, i.e., it's part of a program, created for us to have human experiences. Of course to defend this would take some explaining, but the seeds of this are in parts of this thread.
Quoting universeness
Why would you think that there is some burden for me to explain the nature and structure of the afterlife? My argument isn't about the nature and structure of the universe, it's about the existence of an afterlife. That said, I can give some information about the afterlife, and I have done this in different parts of this thread. My belief is that consciousness is at the bottom of reality. It's a brute fact of reality. Also, I believe that time is part of the nature of consciousness. As far as I can determine it seems contradictory for there to be consciousness without time (without change). I think that space is, at least partly, an aspect of what we experience in an afterlife, i.e., as we move from place to place. Whatever consciousness is, in terms of structure, that will tell us much about the structure of the afterlife. However, we are far from understanding the nature and structure of consciousness. Again though, this does nothing to my argument. Saying something exists doesn't mean that we understand everything about that thing. It just means that we don't have access to all the facts. You see this in science all the time.
Quoting universeness
They're two different investigations. My investigation is a metaphysical one, not a physical investigation. What's considered robust in one context may not work in another context. However, I do think the logic of my argument is very strong. So, it's not about robustness, but about the strength of the argument.
Quoting universeness
I guess I don't see how I haven't been clear on this point. Whether or not an argument is convincing (cogent) to another person is dependent on what that person knows. And since knowledge varies from person to person, being convinced is partly depended on what we know. So if someone isn't familiar with the concepts of mass and energy, they're not going to understand Einstein's conclusion. So it won't be cogent for them, i.e., it won't necessarily convince them of anything.
Quoting universeness
That's right, inductive arguments are supposed to provide some evidence that supports the conclusion, which is why I've said many times in this thread that the argument is either strong or weak. It's suppose to give evidence that the conclusion is probably true, not necessarily true, as in a deductive argument.
Quoting universeness
Just because someone claims to see this or that, that doesn't mean the thing exists, obviously. There's much more to my argument than your simplification. Moreover, to reduce my argument to your version of the argument is a strawman.
I was tempted to not respond to your questions because many of the questions I've already answered several times in this thread. But I guess, one more time won't hurt.
Why? I'm giving an argument based on inductive reasoning. It's part of the study of metaphysics. You may not agree with my conclusion, but it's still a philosophical inquiry.
Well perhaps I did not make my point clearly with the wording I chose. I was trying to ask you why you are only sure that there is 'overwhelming evidence' that an afterlife exists, and that's all you are sure of.
Quoting Sam26
So have you ruminated as to how you think the choice would be made for 'qualifies for the afterlife?' and who or what system would do, or has been doing the choosing?
Quoting Sam26
Your claim that the afterlife exists, was a very strong one.
Quoting Sam26
If I claimed to you that I have overwhelming evidence that time travel into the future is available right now! Would you not expect me to provide some details of how it works and functions or would you just accept that my argument that I have personally experienced it but I cannot reveal the details or tell you what is going to happen due to a universal time prime directive (ie, those involved would kill me) speaks for itself. Would you suggest that such a claim, based on such evidence was absurd?
Quoting Sam26
I am writing a book called Stage II (stage 2) about an afterlife, but it only happens for approximately 1 in every 100 million humans. Just an interesting story (I hope,) nothing more. Where, how, why and the purpose of the stage II ascendents was fun to imagineer. Perhaps I didn't imagineer anything. Perhaps I was receiving Stage II communications, directly to my brain! :yikes:
Quoting Sam26
Yep, perhaps you could write all your musing on the topic down in story form, and you might start a new religious/theosophist movement. I doubt my Stage II book (whenever I finish the f**ker) will start a new movement to rival the biggest growing new religion, 'The Jedi,' but I remain a dreamer. Perhaps your afterlife book, would be better and do better than mine.
Quoting Sam26
I appreciate the time and effort you spent Sam26!
I think it more helpful to determine what someone making the argument for or against materialism or naturalism or metaphysics means. Rather than the meaning of terms, what assumptions about the world, our inquiries, and our understanding are at issue.
With regard to Sam's claims, it seems to me that at the root is a set of beliefs about consciousness:
Quoting Sam26
Of course there are many who hold to this belief without the added belief that individual consciousness is at the bottom of reality or that individual consciousness endures.
Thanks for your useful response. I appreciate you passing your academic philosophy expertise, over the issue.
Aha. We have had a misunderstanding. An 'extreme' or 'positive' metaphysical position is a technical idea, not an opinion.
Metaphysical questions always take the form of a pair of contradictory positive thesis. They ask us to decide between two 'this or that' kind of answers. Materialism vs Idealism would be an example. As they are usually treated in philosophy these take the form A and not-A. The key point is that extreme positions make positive statement about fundamental reality.
Thus positive positions include materialism, (subjective) idealism, freewill, determinism, solipsism, realism,etc., and the idea that the universe begins with or something or nothing, that space-time is grainy or continuous, that time is real or unreal and so forth.
Here the word 'extreme' is not a judgement of how strong it is, but simply of how it functions within the dialectical logic employed by metaphysicians.
What metaphysicians discover is that all such positions are logically indefensible, and as a consequence all metaphysical questions are undecidable. Kant prefers the term 'selective' and states that all selective conclusions about the world as a whole are undecidable. Nagarjuna states that all positive positions are logically indefensible, and Bradley that metaphysics does not produce a positive result. They are all saying the same thing. There in no debate among philosophers on this matter. It is the entire motivation for logical positivism, scientism,and dialethism.
Does this begin to clear up the issue? , .
I , , , , ,
.
I see what is being said here but it is muddled. I believe that materialism is nonsense but that every phenomenon is natural, which is not allowable under the description above. Scientists tend to conflate materialism and naturalism but this is an ideological stance and a bold metaphysical claim. At this time scientists have no idea whether materialism is true or false and have no method for testing which it is, so they have no idea whether it is naturalistic or not. Materialism is methodology that falls apart when it is treated as a theory/ . .
Yes, It does clash. Physical scientists rarely bother with metaphysics, albeit they usually agree that it's nearly impossible do do physics without straying into it. I would highly recommend 'The Mind of God' ; by the physicist Paul Davies if you want to pursue this. It's the best introduction to the subject I've ever read,(and I've read many) because it doesn't waffle on about history but gets down to the issues. It is rightly a bestseller. I often feel that scientists make the best philosophers when they make an effort and would cite Schrodinger as another example. He endorsed the Perennial or 'mystical' philosophy, so was happy with naturalism but not with materialism. . .
In fact scientists usually endorse three metaphysical conjectures. First, that materialism is true. Second,, that naturalism is true,. Third, that materialism is naturalistic.It's a very muddled set of views that requires entirely ignoring metaphysics for the sake of not rocking the boat.
Do you not know that this an open debate? If you could prove this you'd be forever famous as the person who falsified the Perennial philosophy and its entire literature. You would never have to work again. Best to start by saying 'in my opinion'. .
I think it's factual, and there's an interesting history behind this. Granted everything I say is my opinion, unless I'm quoting someone else.
The debate about "mind" and "body", these days are mostly terminological. It was substantive in Descartes time, and prior to that, but not so after Newton.
One can assert that "consciousness is not part of body". That's fine.
Now I ask the question, why? Because consciousness is "non-physical"? That doesn't make sense. Or maybe consciousness is unlike the rest of the world? Yeah, so is gravity.
Maybe you have something else in mind.
I think it's reasonable to consider motives like this, but doesn't this folk-psychology cut both ways? The religious person is 'just terrified to die' and the atheist is 'just doing a gloomysexy elitist pose.' If I simply argue that the other's reasoning is motivated rather than making a direct case for my point, why should I not suspect myself of the same motivated reasoning ? In short, there's something self-subverting about too much psychologism.
Quoting FrancisRay
Thank you for the detail you provided and your book recommendation. It seems to me that philosophy, like most other fields, including my own of Computing Science, contains a great deal of overburdened nomenclature and we will just have to all live with layperson and expert, interpretation or/and novel interpretation. No chosen definition of such terms seem to be 100% fit for purpose. Especially a term like metaphysics.
I think @Fooloso4's advice is wise:
Quoting Fooloso4
'Meta' for me is far too broad, to be of much use, when added to a word like physics.
To me, 'physics' and 'not physics' is far better.
Meta is a prefix from the Greek ????, which can signify “more comprehensive”, “transcending”, “change”, “alteration”, or “beyond”. It can also mean self-referential, as in a field of study or endeavor that examines its own principles or methods
Terms like 'transcending' and 'beyond,' must imo, ultimately regress towards / and land at, the notion of 'transcending' spacetime or the cosmos. Same with 'beyond.' For me, such notions are irrational and absurd.
Metaphysics is the foundation of philosophy, so an incomprehension of metaphysics entails an incomprehension of most of philosophy. (just look around and you'll see this is the case). To dismiss the subject as irrational and absurd would mean never being able to explain the origin and emergence of the space-time universe or its phenomenal contents. It surely cannot be irrational to ask whether we have freewill, whether space-time is fundamental, whether there is a God, whether there is an afterlife, whether consciousness is emergent or fundamental and so on and so forth. It would also leave ten thousand metaphysicians with egg on their faces. ,
I would say metaphysics encompasses physics in much the same way that physics encompasses chemistry, so that physics is 'meta-chemistry'.
I would agree, however, that some approaches to the subject are irrational and absurd.
Again, it makes more sense to me, to simply state that Chemistry is not Physics and metaphysics is just an unnecessary label for that which is not physics.
Quoting FrancisRay
All questions and answers need to be challenged and regularly revisited, to see if any new findings can update what we think we know, I fully agree with that.
Suggesting that spacetime has been proven to be not fundamental, is not true. I would however fully accept a more generalised statement such as:
According to a growing number of physicists, space and time may not be fundamental properties of the universe. Instead, they could arise from the structure and behavior of more basic components of nature. The notion of particles and fields living in spacetime is an emergent property from other underlying microscopic theory dynamics. Space-time arises as an emergent phenomenon of the quantum degrees of freedom entangled and live in the boundary of space-time. The speed of light is more fundamental than space and time.
I also like this, from a theoretical physicist on Quora:
[i]They are both one and the same. Understand this, before information exists altogether, it would have to be stated as no-information, such a state of no information is termed the singularity (zero point). The first step up from no information to information occurs as a plancks legnth worth of spacetime. In the bigbang for example, you have a singularity (no-information) and then you have spacetime (information).
So spacetime is the most fundamental because it is the first piece of information created and secondly without space-time allowing for the “room” for mass or energy to partake in.
Here is another thing that one should understand, spacetime and matter and energy are also one and the same thing! So basically it is space-time that eventually gives birth to energy and it is energy that eventually condenses into matter but regardless they are all one in the same thing exhibiting them self in different states.[/i]
For this universe, there is no 'before' or prior to, spacetime, that can have any meaning for us, as there is no existent information before there is spacetime to contain it.
You can propose some eternal oscillating system that cycles between chaos and order, heat death, singularity and renewed expansion, such as Penrose's CCC and his proposal of the existence of 'hawking points' in this universe. You might prefer a cosmos containing many universes or Mtheory with clashing branes and vibrating strings etc, or if you are really desperate, you can build a faith in the supernatural metaphysics of woo woo.
IMHO, we cannot go beyond the method of physics or more specifically, science without engaging in anything other that pure speculation. It can be great fun to do so, but any application of the concept of metaphysics or metascience, should never be considered as valuable or as fruitful as 'shut up and keep calculating.'
What follows from the argument is an epistemological point, viz., that based on the strength of the testimonial evidence I can reasonably claim there is an afterlife. In other words, I can know there is an afterlife.
If anyone wants to argue against the argument, which I've given at various places in the thread, then you need to attack the premises of the argument. So I would suggest you familiarize yourself with the argument before you start saying things like I'm just expressing an opinion.
Okay. Let's agree to differ. You're ploughing a very lonely furrow and I wonder if you realise this. You're suggesting that you know better that almost every philosopher who ever lived and clearly like to live dangerously.
My apologies.
I understand this and have given the reasons why I believe it will always be an ineffective argument, It certainly affects the balance of probabilities, but as this thread shows it leaves people free to believe what they like. Perhaps I should have stopped there.but I was trying explain that there is better argument that is overwhelming.
I'm astonished by your low epistemological standards. By these standards it would be easy to know that God exists. Your argument establishes that it would not be unreasonable to believe that there is an afterlife, just as long as you have a plausible theory of what you mean by 'afterlife'. It's your proof and you know you're not quite sure whether there is an afterlife or what it is like, let alone know it. Surely you can see this. If you can doubt it, even in principle. then you don't know it.
I'm happy to grant to your argument as much as I've stated here and let you decide whether you want to argue about anything. Thanks for starting an interesting discussion/
Yeah, that's essentially the point I was making. It is common to represent the non-religious view as falling into a shallow sort of dogmatism "less often," but it seems to me like the most common forms of both tend to be quite dogmatic. So, I don't know if it's a difference in kind across the two categories. Rather, the relevant distinction would lie in how the beliefs themselves have been justified/arrived at.
First, you never attack any of the premises of the argument. You just make very general statements, for the most part. Second, my comment that people are free to believe what they want doesn't mean that I think the argument is weak. It just means that people are free to believe what they want regardless of how strong an argument is. That just the way it is. People are free to believe the Earth is flat, but that doesn't mean that the counter-arguments are weak.
Quoting FrancisRay
Again, your statements about how you feel about the argument, or how you feel about my epistemology are worthless. And it doesn't follow that based on the argument I'm using that it would be easy to argue that God exists. You're good at throwing out statements, but not so good when it comes to making good arguments.
Most people know what is meant by afterlife, viz., that one's consciousness survives death, or that your identity as a person survives death.
If my argument is as strong as I believe it is, then I do know that there is an afterlife. Logic is one of the ways we use to justify a belief. Inductive reasoning leads me to believe, and thus know, that the conclusion follows with a high degree of certainty.
Criteria: credibility of witnesses in that, are there inherent biases, or incentives to lie. I note you have addressed this in your reply to other posts, but the fear of death presents an opportunity for fantasy in the form of wishful thinking.
Criteria: are there alternative explanations. I have not yet scrutinized this post to see if this has been addressed. Sorry. But there are other explanations. Given our shared history and shared experiences, these NDE's could be akin to dreams and the appearance of shared symbols or archetypes. Sure, tge testimonials are cross cultural. But if one wished to research it, they might find striking similarities in the ways we dream of witches or falling. Yet we accept that our common dreams about witches do not translate into witches are real.
I agree, and I actually vaguely recall that this is what the research shows regarding some recurrent elements of dreaming, qua human dream, rather htan individual dreams. I think the most likely scenario is something akin to dreaming, which includes an 'extra' psychological component (perhaps, a type of neural networking that only occurs when S is expecting death).
That said, I think the peculiar shared context of NDEs allows us a bit more leeway in terms of moving away from parsimony. The ideas above might explain this phenomenon. But, equally, another explanation would be as likely, given it's a disparate experience from standard dreaming. It doesn't have to include the survival consciousness, per se, but just something which is not a match for the mechanics of dreaming.
Having been interested in this exact topic for more than 20 years, and having done plenty of 'research' into plenty of theories and ideas around it, it seems to me probably untrue that consciousness dies with the individual mind. But that it survives the body is just as perplexing.
100% Agreed. Especially, the topic of afterlife, if nothing else, cannot but be approached liberally. Yet that's a field in which we find some of the most of both dogma, and its close relative (if not, progenitor), wishful thinking. Mass shared experience can easily arise from both.
I used to entertain that. I still wish profoundly that it were true. Quoting AmadeusD
Quoting AmadeusD
And there's the rub. How then? And I am asking sincerely, not argumentative. Although, I genuinely believe, alas, that any afterlife for mind necessarily implies dualism, and that we cannot support dualism of Mind and body, beyond the life of the Body. If we can, then I reiterate, how?
FWIW, I read this as a great question, not any kind of dig or gotcha.
Yeah, that is the question (in this context - i also am making this same claim about the lack of necessity for phenomenal consciousness in another thread). I really am unsure. I have many theories around what consciousness might be, or how it might come about which, if any were seriously plausible on the facts (unsure that's a coherent claim in this lane of enquiry) they would give an account that could extend to this question.
So, disappointingly, I don't know!
Conceptually, though, I see absolutely no issue with Consciousness being some more general concept, and 'a mind' being 'bodily bound consciousness' or some such. This-wise, you could imagine bodily death causing the end of that one mind, but not the consciousness. The image that came to mind was a water balloon. That balloon of water is gone. Done and dusted (once burst) but hte water persists. Idk lol
Yes. Definitely not a dig. :up:
Quoting AmadeusD
I do too. But for me that "afterlife" does not include my ego--the Subject,"I"--nor any of its Narrative. So, admittedly this is that ego taliking: thanks but no thanks.
Now, more seriously. Yah. Whatever that consciousness is that is not mind, intuition tells me it might even pervade the universe. But if we’re being honest, that's not what we're after when we (myself included) get sucked in by fantasy: milk and honey, streets paved with gold, and the stuff of NDEs.
Quoting AmadeusD
I feel you brother (sister, or what not)!
Yes, that's the part that is 'rub'-y. Harris (Sam) put its well - how is it possible that a decaying mind(dementia) that no longer recognises one's children suddenly departs from the body, in tact as at some random point in the past.
It's not coherent, to me. But again, I'm unsure that identity extends beyond the fact of the vessel. Consciousness doesn't, on it's face, consist in memories, so I see no reason to have them at-base.
Quoting ENOAH
It's a hard go, this lifetime :D
Might it be that the one which consists in memories, what I've referred to as the Narrative, is that Mind which does not persist. But, to differentiate, "real consciousness" does not consist in memories. And I think therefore ironically, real consciousness, the one which does not necessarily require the fleshy infrastructure to operate its memory store, if it persists in the afterlife, it is necessarily not the Narrative. Sad as it is, "I" is the Narrative, requires memory and its organic infrastructure. I goes never to return with the death of the Body. As for so called real consciousness, perhaps the incessantly present awareness Nature has in Be-ing. Perhaps what I really am, as/along with this body is that incessant presence where death doesn't matter where afterlife doesn't matter. All there is is Be-ing, and Be-ing is aware-ing be-ing. And, admittedly for drama, Tat Tvam Asi. Thou art that. But you are not the Narrative.
Quoting AmadeusD
Right? And that too is a topic for further discussion somewhere. We know [it is Fiction] but [built into the Fiction is the reward of] we act as if [it is Real]
I am fine being in the experience machine.
There's no place like it
If memories aren't preserved in my after-life consciousness, in what sense is that still me? It hardly seems like something to look forward to.
This touches on the concept the individual identity, and essence. It sounds like Penelope Mackie's minimal essentialism - which entails a bare identity with no attached properties.
If half your memories suddenly disappeared, would you be half you? Wouldn't you still be you even if you lost 90% of your memories? If I had a conversation with my 20 year old self, I could tell my 20 year old self: "95% of what you do this year will be forgotten by the time you're 50." What should the reaction of my 20 year old self be upon hearing that? Fear that so much will be forgotten? Also, if my 80 year old self tells me that I won't have dementia, but through natural forgetting, 95% of this year I'm living right now will be forgotten, how should I feel about that right now?
Me (now) is not identical to the me of yesteday, much less to the infant me of 70 years ago.
I take the identity of indiscernibles seriously: entities x and y are identical if every predicate possessed by x is also possessed by y and vice versa
In terms of having an identity over time, it is a looser sort of identity. Perdurantism makes some sense: my identity has temporal parts: today's me was caused by yesterday's me, in a temporal chain that goes back to whatever we might call my origin. But there's a vast difference between 70 year old me and zygote me. Zygote me lacks an entire lifetime of my memories. Similarly with losing memories from dementia or trauma. In some sense, it's stll me - but a vastly different me depending on how much is lost, and if it's sudden or gradual. If it's gradual, then it's the mirror image of growing up and gaining memories- each day not much different from the last. But loss of all memories at death is a discontinuity. I don't see any sense that it's me. It's similar to zygote-me, but without the temporal connections to the subsequent temporal parts the zygote has. We'd label it me only if we choose to define individual identity that way, but that's arbitrary.
Split-brain cases are rather important in considering this. Memories residing in more than one person is very troublesome. In the Teletransporter cases, someone who is not you, is exactly continuous with you.
I will return to this, as I am about to leave work - but I'm also about to finish Reasons and Persons. I have a lot fo thoughts lol.
But you can never be identical to yourself in even the shortest amounts of time. At any point in time, atoms are moving in and out of your body, changing your physical makeup. But breathing doesn't make you a different person. Why should memory loss? Are you claiming the loss of one completely trivial memory in the next five seconds make you not you? That it turns you into a completely different person?
In terms of strict identity, we can consider ourselves AT a point of time: RogueAI at t1 is identical to RogueAI at t1.
RogueAI at t1 has the same loose (perduring) identity as RougueAI at t2, t3, ...tn. This holds even if memory loss commences at some point - all are on a unique causal chain.
Let's suppose you die at tn, and all your memories cease to exist. Should we consider your loose identity to continue existing? The paradigm doesn't dictate an answer; it's a matter of semantics - what do we wish to refer to. We could talk about (loose identity) RogueAI in any of 3 ways:
1. The living person (which ceases to exist at death)
2. The physical body (which gradually decomposes after death)
3. A bare identity (a haeccity) that is your propertyless essense.
I don't believe in haeccity, so I generally wouldn't use sense #3. But we've been discussing an afterlife in which one's memories are gone. This seems to be a bare identity. Perhaps it reincarnates in a new infant.
But then we must ask, why a knew infant rather than an unknewn infant.
Corrected.
It's fascinating, but frustrating. How best to account for these, metaphysically?
If actual reincarnation, it implies some (traumatic) memories are stored non-physically.
But it could be some telepathic connection across time, implying something about the nature of time and of mental activities.
It's frustrating because there seems to be no way to test any theories.
Or it could be considered a discontinuity: you are being destroyed and a new entity, an exact physical copy, is being produced. I tend to think there's no right answer; all answers are paradigm dependent.
But if a child's alleged memories of a previous life can be validated against documentary records and witness testimony, that amounts to some form of verification. (I've discussed Ian Stevenson previously but it usually generates such hostility that I refrain.) However his activities spanned a 30 year period and many thousands of cases. He himself never claimed to have proved that cases of re-incarnation occur, but that the evidence 'suggests it'. My knowledge of it is limited to a book I read about him by a journalist who travelled with him, and one of his publications borrowed from a library. Seems legit to me, but to a lot of people, not only is it not true, but it can't be true. Whereas I'm open to the idea.
Quoting RogueAI
I watched about half of it, but I didn't notice anything about this topic. Besides, I don't know if idealism 'solves' the question of re-incarnation. Perhaps Sheldrake's morphic resonance at least provides a candidate for a medium of transmission. He says, as you will recall, that nature forms habits, that memories are not merely encoded in brains but in morphic fields. One question I've got is this: science only discovered electromagnetic fields in the mid-19th century. Until then, we had no idea of such a phenomenon, now they're thought to be more fundamental than sub-atomic particles. So what if there are fields other than electro-magnetic? How would they be detected? Electromagnetic fields are detected using instruments that register electric current. Even if there were morphic fields, presumably they are not detectable by those instruments, so they might exist undetected. There have been ideas like this in esoteric and occult circles for millenia. Maybe they're on to something, but it's a taboo subject as far as the mainstream is concerned.
No, not that. The problem of personal identity across time.
I'm not challenging the fact that it's verification that the child has some knowledge of someone who's dead, and the knowledge was not obtained from contemporary sources, but rather due to something paranormal. Although it's consistent with reincarnation, it could be some other mechanism - and I was lamenting that there's no way to test what is actually going on- to know if it is reincarnation, or some form of ESP.
The article I linked to mentions perdurance. That has to do with anything - and it doesn't have to be a being - maintaining identity through time even as some or all of its component parts are changed (per Ship of Theseus).
Quoting Relativist
Stevenson acknowledges that. It's why he says his data doesn't prove that reincarnation has occured.
It's probably worth acknowledging the Buddhist view of rebirth. As a matter of dogma, Buddhism denies that there is an eternally-existing self that migrates life to life. However, and paradoxically, rebirth is still fundamental to the religion. Consider the selection of lamas in Tibetan Buddhism, where children are shown artifacts from a purported previous incarnation, if they recognise them it's taken as evidence of their identity - even though there is no self or soul that migrates! Many would say it's evidence of a contradiction in Buddhism, but they say that a rebirth is more like a recurring pattern of existence - there's actually a rather lovely Sanskrit term for it, 'citta-sa?t?na':
[quote=Wikipedia;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindstream]Citta-sa?t?na (Sanskrit), literally "the stream of mind",[3] is the stream of succeeding moments of mind or awareness. It provides a continuity of the personality in the absence of a permanently abiding "self" (?tman), which Buddhism denies. The mindstream provides a continuity from one life to another, akin to the flame of a candle which may be passed from one candle to another:[4][5][a] William Waldron writes that "Indian Buddhists see the 'evolution' of mind i[n] terms of the continuity of individual mind-streams from one lifetime to the next, with karma as the basic causal mechanism whereby transformations are transmitted from one life to the next."[6]
According to Waldron, "[T]he mind stream (sant?na) increases gradually by the mental afflictions (kle?a) and by actions (karma), and goes again to the next world. In this way the circle of existence is without beginning."[7][/quote]
So that actually dovetails rather well with 'perdurance' theory, which could be summarised as 'not the same, but also not different'.
(Incidentally, William Waldron is a go-to scholar in this area, when I did Buddhist Studies, I emailed him and got a nice reply, with some unpublished articles attached. His latest book is this one.)
Well, as it is, that is how i conceptualise teletransportation.
My point was that the resulting person is psychologically continuous, and psychologically connected extremely strongly with you - to the point that no one but your original 'self' could be as connected.
Unless you take the Physical continuity, or further fact view, It doesn't seem like anything is being left out of the transmission. You're right that your paradigm informs how to think about the case, but it seems straight-forward to point out what is and isn't involved in these cases (branch-line case being an additional thing to ponder, and other versions). In this way, it seems clear that there are 'correct' ways to interpret the cases on each view
Parfit concludes that the above is all that matters and that 'personal identity' simply doesn't obtain, at all. He's a pretty harsh reductionist.
This is a good example of why I believe both religions and materialists have it wrong. There are 100,000's of testimonials like this.
This is the argument I put forth in my thread Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body, in The Philosophy Forum under the name Sam26. I have also talked about this argument in other philosophy forums. I say this to allay questions of plagiarism. I have been posting on this subject for at least 12-15 years across many platforms.
My claim is that there is sufficient testimonial evidence to reasonably conclude that consciousness survives (that we survive, albeit in another form) the death of the body. So, I am making the claim that I know the conclusion of my argument is true. And, although I believe I could make other claims (and I will in later posts) based on the evidence, that is, claims of knowledge (by knowledge I mean justified true belief), I am limiting the scope of the conclusion in this initial post to keep confusion to a minimum. By limited, I mean I am not trying to give evidence of a God, heaven, that we are eternal beings, or any other spiritual or religious idea or doctrine; nor am I trying to give evidence of many of the other claims people are making while having such an experience. Although, as I have said, I do believe there is strong evidence to support other conclusions, and these conclusions have varying degrees of certainty, just as many of our everyday conclusions have varying degrees of certainty (subjective as well as objective certainty).
Preliminaries:
The first question is, what makes a strong inductive argument? The criteria for a good inductive argument are much different from the criteria for a good deductive argument. The criteria of a good inductive argument are as follows:
(1) number
(2) variety
(3) scope of the conclusion
(4) truth of the premises
(5) cogency
First, number. It seems rather obvious that if you have a greater number of testimonials that say something happened, then the stronger the argument. This does not mean that the conclusion relies solely on numbers because numbers in themselves are not always sufficient. It is important to the understanding of this argument that all of the criteria work together to strengthen the conclusion.
Second, variety. The greater the variety of cases cited the stronger the conclusion. When examining the conclusion of an inductive argument, the conclusion is either strong or weak, which is much different from a good deductive argument, where the conclusion follows with absolute necessity if it is sound (soundness means the deductive argument is both valid and the premises are true). The difference is what is probably or likely the case (inductive arguments), versus what necessarily follows (deductive arguments). A common misconception among some people is that if we do not know with absolute certainty then we do not know, but this is an error. Most of what we know is based on inductive reasoning, including many of the claims of science. Most of it is probability-based, so it is not known with absolute certainty, it is known with a high degree of certainty. So, when I use the phrase “I know..” in reference to the conclusion of this argument, I am referring to what is known based on what is probably the case; and since probability varies significantly I should say that I believe that the conclusion follows with a very high degree of probability based on the strength of the evidence.
Third, the scope of the conclusion. This has already been covered briefly in the opening paragraph (I'm referring to an opening paragraph in my Quora space.), it means that the less the conclusion claims the stronger the argument. In other words, conclusions that are broad in scope are much harder to defend. A conclusion that is limited in scope is easier to defend. The reason is that conclusions that are too broad require much more evidence than conclusions that are limited in their scope.
Fourth, truth of the premises. This means that the premises must be true, which by the way, is the same criteria that make a good deductive argument, that is, a good deductive argument must be sound (soundness has to do with whether the deductive argument is valid, plus the premises must be true).
(a) Since we are dealing with testimonial evidence, to know if the testimonial evidence is true, we first need corroboration, that is, we need an objective way to verify the testimonial evidence. This helps to establish the truth of the claims or the truth of the premises. Moreover, it helps add an objective way of verifying subjective experiences. There is both a subjective and objective component to this argument. The objective component helps to determine the objective facts of the experiences.
(b) Another important factor in determining the truth of testimonial evidence is firsthand testimony, as opposed to hearsay or secondhand testimony. Firsthand testimony is stronger than hearsay or second-hand testimony, all things being equal. This is an important component of all testimonial evidence and should be carefully considered when examining any kind of testimonial evidence.
(c) Consistency of the reports is another important criterion in terms of getting to the truth. However, testimonial evidence does not have to be perfectly consistent to be credible. When dealing with a large number of reports you will inevitably find some inconsistency. So, inconsistency itself is not enough to rule out the reports unless the inconsistency is widespread, and of such a number, that it affects the quality and number of consistent reports. So, although consistency is important, it must be looked at in terms of the overall picture. We often find inconsistent testimonial reports but that does not mean that all of the reports should be dismissed, it just means that our testimonial evidence should be based on those reports that are consistent.
Fifth is cogency. You rarely hear this criterion, but it is very important in terms of the effectiveness of the argument. There is a sense where any argument's (deductive or inductive) effectiveness is going to be based on whether the person to whom the argument is given, knows the premises are true. For example, if I give the following argument:
The base of a souffle is a roux.
This salmon dish is a souffle.
Hence, the base of this salmon dish is a roux (Dr. Byron I. Bitar, Classical Christian Wisdom, p. 70).
If you do not know what a souffle or a roux is, then you do not know if the premises are true, so how would you know if the conclusion is true? You may know that the argument is valid based on its form, but you would not know if the premises are true. So, you would not know if it is sound. For any argument to be effective, you have to know if the premises are true; and since knowledge varies from person to person, an argument's effectiveness is going to vary from person to person.
Now we have given some of the preliminaries, we will proceed to the argument itself.
The Inductive Argument:
The following argument is based on the testimonial evidence of those who have experienced an NDE, and the conclusion follows with a high degree of certainty. As such, one can claim to know the conclusion is true. This argument makes such a claim.
Each of the aforementioned criteria serves to strengthen the testimonial evidence. All of the criteria in the previous paragraphs work hand-in-hand to strengthen the conclusion, and the criteria serve to strengthen any claim to knowledge. If we have a large enough pool of evidence based on these five criteria, we can say with confidence that we know that consciousness survives the death of the body, namely, we can say what is probably the case, but not what is necessarily the case.
Again, if there is a high degree of probability that these testimonials reflect an objective reality, then we can also say with confidence, that we know consciousness survives the death of the body. Thus, our knowledge is based on objective criteria, not on purely subjective claims.
We will now look at the testimonial evidence in terms of the five stated criteria, and how these testimonials support the conclusion.
First, what is the number of people who claim to have had an NDE? According to a 1992 Gallop poll about 5% of the population has experienced an NDE; and even if this poll is off by a little, we are still talking about millions of people. So, the number of accounts of NDEs is very high, much higher than what we would normally need to add to the strength of the conclusion.
Also, as was mentioned in the previous post, numbers in themselves are not enough, which is why the other criteria must be coupled with numbers.
The second criterion of good testimonial evidence is variety, that is, do we have evidence from a variety of sources? The answer to this question is in the affirmative. NDEs have been reported in every culture from around the world, which by definition means that we are getting reports from different religious views, and different world views. NDEs also span every age group, from young children to the middle-aged and finally to the aged. The testimonial reports come from doctors, nurses, scientists, atheists, and agnostics, literally from every imaginable educational level and background. NDEs occur in a variety of settings, including drowning, electrocution, while awake, while on the operating table, after a heart attack, etc. People have also reported having shared an NDE with someone else, although rarely. They have happened when there is no heartbeat, with the blood drained from the brain, and with no measurable brain activity. They have been reported to happen with a minimal amount of stress, that is, without being near death.
The third criterion is the scope of the conclusion, and the scope of this conclusion is limited to consciousness surviving the body. The conclusion claims that we can know that consciousness survives bodily death.
The fourth criterion is the truth of the premises. To know if the premises are true, we need corroboration of the testimonial evidence, a high degree of consistency, and firsthand testimony. In all or most of these cases, it seems clear that we have all three. We have millions of accounts that can be corroborated by family members, friends, doctors, nurses, and hospice workers. Corroboration is important in establishing some objectivity to what is a very subjective experience. It gives credence and credibility to the accounts. One example of corroboration is given in Pam's NDE out of Atlanta, GA, which can be seen on YouTube, although the video is old.
Consistency is also important to the establishment of the truth of the premises. We have a high degree of consistency across a wide variety of reports. What are these consistent reports?
1) Seeing one's body from a third person perspective, that is, from outside one's body, and hearing and seeing what is happening around their bodies.
2) Having intense feelings of being loved, intense feelings of peace, and the absence of pain.
3) Seeing a light or tunnel in the distance and feeling that one is being drawn to the light, or moving towards the light.
4) Seeing deceased loved ones.
5) Seeing beings of light that one may interpret as Jesus, Mary, Muhammad, an angel, or just a loving being that one may feel connected with.
6) Heightened sensory experiences, namely, feeling that one is having an ultra-real experience, as opposed to a dream or a hallucination. This happens even when there is no measurable brain activity.
7) Communication that happens mind-to-mind, not verbally.
8) Seeing beautiful landscapes.
9) Seeing people who are getting ready or waiting to be born.
10) Having a life review by a loving being who is not judgmental, but simply showing you how important it is to love, and the importance of your actions on those you come in contact with.
11) Feeling as though one has returned home. This is also confirmed by people who were told they chose to come to Earth.
12) A feeling of oneness with everything, as though we are part of one consciousness.
13) Memories of who they are return, as though they temporarily forgot who they were, and where they came from.
14) There are also reports of knowledge returning, and many questions being answered as quickly as they think of the question.
15) Understanding that ultimately we cannot be harmed and that everything is perfect as it is.
16) That we are eternal beings simply entering into one of many realities. We are simply higher beings that choose to have a human experience. Ultimately, we are not human, being human is just a temporary experience. Our humanity ends when we die, then we assume our original form.
Another aid in establishing the truth of the testimonial evidence is firsthand accounts, as opposed to hearsay. There are thousands of firsthand accounts being reported by the International Association of Near-Death Studies, and according to polling, there are many millions of firsthand accounts.
The fifth criterion is the cogency of the premises. Whether the argument is cogent for you depends on many factors, but many people have heard of near-death experiences, so the concept is not an unfamiliar one. It is not going to be cogent for everyone, but with a little study and reading it can be cogent. It is not difficult to understand the concept. Although it is probably going to be difficult to understand how it is metaphysically possible. This argument claims that it is highly probable that consciousness survives the death of the body, and that the conclusion is very strong based on what makes for a strong inductive argument.
The further claim of this argument is that I know that I know the conclusion is true. Is it possible the conclusion is wrong? Of course it is possible, but we do not want to base a belief on what is possible, but on what is likely the case. All kinds of things are possible, but that does not mean we should believe them.
I loved this. Thank you. I am persuaded on the face of it. I can't help a couple of hesitations below. Your skill in logic/knowledge of the literature is far more advanced than mine, so maybe you can quickly dismiss them. And I'm not patronizing: I am truly impressed, but for...
First let me get what troubles me out of the way. I know and appreciate all of the complex layers of your cogent reasoning. But what stands out is the persuasiveness of the 5%=millions. Could millions be liars and or delusional and or themselves persuaded before its first conversion into data? Maybe, but assume not. Could you say (and I haven't looked into this) the same about those who claim to be born again, saved by the holy spirit (speaking in tongues, muscle spasms, new outlook etc) or those who claim Satori etc? Or visitations/alien viewings?
And you can't just say in those other e.g. consistencies arise from shared wishful thinking, without applying that to NDE testimonials.
Quoting Sam26
What if there might be other explanations for the consistencies besides that the claims are factual?
And it doesn't have to be deviant. Absorbed from human culture/History, are these shared "desires" regarding immortality/"an" afterlife, built into our collective Narratives to which we each assimilate by simply sharing in our locus in History. These manifest/are input when as children we express fear of the end of our own Narrative and a "teacher" (anyone) soothes them by inputting modifications to the Narrative: bright light, Jesus will call you, you'll be reunited with loved ones. And as for the tunnel: death is the otherside, the passage to etc.
Perhaps when one is close to death, or whatever such trauma is, these modifications flood the brain to trigger soothing feelings and to allay the pain of fear.
How can I know that the experience that I'm having (or remember having) is a near death experience?
Is it derived after the experience, e.g. from a doctor telling me that I was dead for a few minutes, plus from remembering having had an experience and deriving that I must have had it near or during those minutes?
Or is it inferred from recognizing or interpreting the experience as a typical near death experience because one has seen alleged near death experiences depicted or described?
I don't know if I've ever had experiences near death, only near unconscious states, such as when falling asleep or experiencing accidents. Extraordinary situations, disorientation, pain etc tend to evoke extraordinary experiences.
Of course it's not just the numbers, as I've said, it's all the criteria that make a strong inductive argument. So, the numbers are impressive, but numbers don't give us the truth or the facts. You have to look at the testimonial evidence as a whole which leads to a strong conclusion.
I don't put much stock in religious belief, there is some overlap, but overall, the evidence for an afterlife based on NDEs is overwhelming. The evidence for some religious belief is very subjective and flimsy. NDEs give a much better picture of the afterlife than any religious view and with stronger testimonial evidence.
Quoting ENOAH
I never said that NDEs are consistent because they are factual. I said that the fact that NDEs are generally consistent gives support to the truth of the testimonials.
I take the testimonials at face value unless there are good reasons not to. I would suggest re-reading that post so that you fully understand the logic.
Thanks for the compliment, and the reply.
If you had an NDE it wouldn't be something that easily forgotten. Moreover, you would know based on what others have reported and comparing your experience with theirs.
Just listen to this NDE, it may answer your questions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZfaPCwjguk
Your one major problem is that in every case of "life after death" experience, the patient has never been fully brain dead. Meaning these are living experiences, not after death experiences. Sorry, there is no evidence of life after death. Conclusively.
I never referred to these experiences as after-death experiences, those are your words, not mine.
To say that "...there is no evidence of life after death" is just an expression of an opinion. I've given a well-structured inductive argument that supports my conclusion.
Incorrect. Cite me a case in which a person had complete brain death and I'll recant.
Quoting Sam26
This is again, impossible. To completely drain the blood from a brain you would have to completely drain the blood from the body. Again, cite this case please.
Quoting Sam26
And what about the thousands and thousands of cases in which there was no testimonial? In which a person was simply completely unconscious and nothing more? My Aunt had a near death experience and she said she was being stabbed and tortured. She was a good person. Are we going to simply brush that under the rug? Cherry picking what you're looking for and saying you have a lot of similar cases is not a viable argument.
Quoting Sam26
No. It is a cold and unerring fact. First, we can cite the complete lack of objective evidence. There has never been any signs of life after something has died. Second, we can cite the objective evidence of how the brain functions, and how it ties to people's personalities and ability to function in the world. Years of drug studies and brain surgery have demonstrated that you are your brain. There is no other alternative.
You will die. I will die. We all, will die. Don't waste what precious life and purpose you have on thinking that fantasy and fiction are real. Go and enjoy every precious second. You'll never get any of them back.
I'll ask you one more time, what do you mean by complete brain death? I never use any such terms. When I speak of death, I mean clinical death, i.e., no measurable brain activity, no heartbeat, and no breathing. Are you disputing that there are any NDEs that occur when a person is pronounced clinically dead? If you want an e.g. of someone who had an NDE when there was no measurable brain activity then I would give the example of Pam's NDE out of Atlanta, GA
Quoting Philosophim
This is a well documented case, here is one of many videos on this NDE.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNbdUEqDB-k
First, what you're claiming is not an unerring fact. Just because someone claims something is factual doesn't make it so. And your claim that there is no objective evidence shows just how little you know of the subject. Many thousands of NDE testimonials have been corroborated by doctors, nurses, friends, and family. If someone claims to see something at T1 and others corroborate that claim, then it's objective testimonial evidence, period.
Quoting Philosophim
There is no other alternative, what a silly statement, and an arrogant one too. Many scientists dispute this. In any case, my argument stands.
Here is a scientific article on the matter Sam26. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0787/5/2/18 I encourage you to read that.
Quoting Sam26
I know you're well meaning, but a 'for tv' story is not a factual analysis. Here's an analysis of why Pam Reynolds NDE does not note anything remarkable. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc461684/m1/1/
Quoting Sam26
Correct. But we have all the proof we need. If I say, "Its a fact unicorn's don't exist," you're not going to question me on it right? There is no measurement of anything that leaves the brain or body after death. If you have brain damage, you will change. You are part of this universe, not separate from it. I get that your intelligence and sense of self-preservation make you want to give the proverbial middle finger to the rest of the universe, but you are not special. You are made up of the same stuff everything else is.
But we are not special. It is hubris to think we are. Check out some neuroscience. Check out psychotherapy. Get drunk for a while and see how much you change. There is nothing special about you beyond your physical make up.
Quoting Sam26
I am not disputing that people have these experiences. But I am disputing that they are any evidence in any serious discussion of life after death. All the facts are on my side, while all you have are inductive arguments, and a strong desire for it to be true.
Quoting Sam26
Its not arrogant, its a fact. If its arrogant, give me a counter fact. To not give me a counter fact is a person who is angry at a point, but nothing else. I don't want you to be angry, hopeful, passionate, or anything emotional. I want you to look at the facts. Don't tell me, "Many scientists," show me a scientist who has a peer reviewed study that cites a factual argument for life after death. There are none. Because there is no life after death. It is purely an emotional desire people want to believe in.
You make too much of the definition. People who have had NDEs have not experienced brain decomposition (clearly a point of no return), and the absence of measurable brain activity does not imply there is NO brain activity.
Yes, like out of body experiences, spiritual enlightenment/"salvation", ghost and alien summoning/sightings; all of which have similarly consistent reports.
It's reasonable to believe that her report is sincere. Most reports of NDEs probably are. Nevertheless, there is ambiguity in how perceptual verbs such as 'experience' are used
In one sense 'experience' means the conscious state that arises from brain activity. In another sense it means the objects and states of affairs that the conscious state is about.
By using these two senses ambiguously you can produce intriguingly absurd results. For example, experiences without brain activity, or a world where all objects and states of affairs are made of brain activity. Fallacies of ambiguity.
from p.28 of this thread ...
Quoting 180 Proof
- [reply="Sam26;912324]
There are two issues with this. First, what's in bold is key. It's not the same as no brain activity at all. Different types of medical machines detect brain activity differently. A machine that is designed to specifically concentrate on brain activity is more accurate than one that just monitor the life status of a patient. "Clinical death" is actually misleading because it's not the same as being dead. Death is a process. Whereas dead is a state. It's more accurate to describe it using the word, "dying."
The second one is important. When it comes to "clinical death," there are two types, involuntary and voluntary. When it comes to the case of Pam, she fell under voluntary clinical death. This occurs during sleep brain surgery. This means that instead of the continuously deteriorating brain activity, it's a control one, in that it's deteriorating in pulses. Machines are technically preventing the brain becoming dead by constantly sending electrical pulses to the brain.
Also, the video that you linked is poor source for accessing her case. It's a documentary video and not an examination video. Put aside the notion that it's a video about NDE, it's a demonstration of an explanation for the layman, not a scientific explanation. The narrator presents a simple explanation of what is going on. This goes for the medical representative as well. An example is when the narrator state that the her brain was drained of fluid. What's not mentioned is that during a surgery, the brain is not entirely drained of its fluids. What's actually going on is that the fluid is slowly but constantly being drained. This is to prevent there being any fluidic pressure so not to interfere with what the surgeon is doing. Once the surgeon is done, the process is reversed. Fluid is slowly added back into the brain along with electrical pulses to bring the brain activity back to normal condition.
--??------
Here's a scientific explanation for her case.
- According to the psychologist Chris French:
Woerlee, an anesthesiologist with many years of clinical experience, has considered this case in detail and remains unconvinced of the need for a paranormal explanation... [He] draws attention to the fact that Reynolds could only give a report of her experience some time after she recovered from the anesthetic as she was still intubated when she regained consciousness. This would provide some opportunity for her to associate and elaborate upon the sensations she had experienced during the operation with her existing knowledge and expectations. The fact that she described the small pneumatic saw used in the operation also does not impress Woerlee. As he points out, the saw sounds like and, to some extent, looks like the pneumatic drills used by dentists.[2] -
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pam_Reynolds_case
Maybe. Does this entail or imply that there is nothing after death? Consciousness can and does transcend the limits of individual physical entities. You yourself are an aggregate of individual entities (cells) whose mutual "communication" is integral to what you experience as consciousness. But your cells constantly die. So if you cannot reductively explain consciousness with reference to the finite lifespan of individual entities (i.e. consciousness can transcend the destruction of finite living things) then you cannot conclusively eliminate it based on the termination of a finite life-form either.
Entail. Its easy to make the mistake that just because we can imagine something, and it seems reasonable to us, we think it has the possibility of being real. It does not. For what is imagined to be real, there must be evidence of it being real somehow. There is zero evidence.
Quoting Pantagruel
But this applies to every cellular structure. So does my skin transcend physical limits because muscle cells constantly die and are replaced? But lets go further. Does this also apply to society? Isn't a society a set of communicating individuals that constantly die? Does this mean societies transcend their physical application and live on in some other dimension after they die?
The problem is your argument just doesn't apply to brains specifically, but to every single thing that lives and communicates on the planet. And of course you think its absurd that there is a consciousness of society that still lives on in heaven when the society dies. The personal desire for eternal life overrides your ability to apply the argument broadly and consistently. As a rational argument divest of any emotion, bias, or self-interest, it is completely illogical by everything we know to think that a person's consciousness lives on after they die.
Entail.[/quote]
I recall seeing a documentary where biologist dehydrates all the cells of a tardigrade, including its metabolic organ, nerve system etc.. Since it becomes a completely dry thing without functioning parts it seems fairly reasonable to call it dead. Later, however, when it is rehydrated, the cells, organs, nerve system etc. start functioning again.
If tardigrades have experiences, then near death experiences are possible. :cool:
I never said people didn't have these experiences. I've just noted they are not evidence of experiences after death, or that there is a survival of consciousness beyond brain death.
The tardigrade goes into a state of cryptobiosis in which its metabolic and other systems shut down. So, after all, it's probably not so reasonable to call it dead.
Sure. Democritus imagined atoms were real. And there was evidence. It just wasn't available to him at the time that he imagined it. But his imaginings formed part of the overall inquiry that eventually led to the discovery of that evidence. Which in itself is yet more evidence that consciousness transcends that of the individual....
Induction is a valuable form of thinking, but we must be very careful in how we use it, and what we can conclude from it. People also imagined that spontaneous creation was real. If you left meat out overnight, flies would spontaneously create themselves. This is because they didn't understand that flies laid eggs.
Induction, depending on how its formed, is a reasonable state of inquiry, NOT assertion. Its a mistake people make all the time. Let me give you some examples.
Probability - The coin in most cases has an approximately 50% chance of landing on one side. This is a calculated set of limited outcomes concluded by reason and the known physical realities of the universe. But we still need to flip the coin to see a side.
Possibility - Its possible the coin could land on heads or tails. Its because we've observed it happening before. If its been known to happen once, it could happen again. But we need to flip that coin to see what comes up.
Plausibility - The coin could change its material essence due to an unknown law of physics, and on flipping, become so light that it escapes Earth's orbit and never comes down. We can imagine it, it, the construction of our statements make it feel (not actually be) reasonable, so we think its possible. We still must have someone die, and find some evidence that they survive after death. But its not possible because it hasn't happened yet. Its plausible, or an imagined scenario that has never come to pass.
Its plausible that we survive after death. But its also plausible that your ceiling is actually a sentient alien that likes watching humans. Plausibility has zero fact behind it, it is just what we can imagine that has not happened even once. Plausibility is not in the realm of facts. Probability is based on the logical limitations that come from known facts. Possibility is based on the fact it has happened at least once. Plausibility is purely the realm of imagination.
Plausible thoughts are absolutely essential for discovery. They are what compel us to explore and find new things. They are the source of creativity. But they are NOT facts. They are feelings that should never be confused as being real until we have confirmed that they are in fact real.
So, no. Being able to think that its plausible we live on after we die is no evidence of any fact that we live on after we die. In fact, every fact that we do know of shows that the probability of our consciousness living on after death is 0%. We know that its not possible to live on after we die. And since probability and possibility are at least based on some facts, they are more cogent, and take precedence in logical thinking over plausibilities.
Therefore it is a deduced fact that we do not live on after death. And if we are to enter into the realm of induction, the more reasonable inductions are that it is both improbable, and impossible that we live on after death. It doesn't mean we can't keep looking for plausibilities we like to be true. But we can never reasonably assert that because we can hold a plausibility, that it is any evidence that it is true.
I agree.
Which is fine. You can agree with any plausibility. Its plausible that green men live on the moon. Or plausible that anything you can imagine could be. Agreeing with it is irrelevant to any claim of truth or fact.
More importantly, do you agree by the definitions above that it is impossible for life to continue after death? And I don't mean your feelings, I mean rationally?
Life? Sure. Consciousness? No. They are not necessarily equivalent. Perhaps Consciousness is emergent from Life.
True, they aren't equivalent. But we have not seen any evidence of life nor consciousness continue after death. Therefore there is 0 probability, and thus it is impossible for us to say consciousness continues after death as well.
Is it plausible that consciousness continues after death? Just as plausible that everything we know in physics will be found wrong in the future. But these plausibilities are not facts, likelihoods, or an assertion of anything more than imagined speculation. We may speculate and imagine all we want, but rationally we need to make decisions regarding what we know today.
You of course can believe in pluasibilities, there's nothing stopping you. The question is whether the belief is rational or not. In the case of consciousness after death, it is an irrational belief. All evidence of the brain and mind points to the end of consciousness after death, while there has never been any viable evidence that points to its opposite. It is, with our current understanding, only justified by the fact we want consciousness to exist after death, and nothing more.
Like the JWST crisis in cosmology?
I have a pretty good grasp of what's scientific and what's not. I'm not aware of any science that contradicts the fact that consciousness appears to transcend materialism in significant ways. What you are claiming might be true in a reductionist reality. But reductionism is no longer, what is your word, plausible.
Exactly. All knowledge is an assertion of what we know today. We know its possible to learn new things and change what we know over time. What I'm stating here applies to all rational claims, not just the afterlife. I don't have anything personal against the afterlife, there's just no evidence for it. It doesn't mean we didn't know what physics was prior to the new discovery. Its that we knew physics as what it was prior to the new discovery. That knowledge is based on what can be rationally concluded with the information we have at the time.
Quoting Pantagruel
The significant science and medical conclusions over the years can be summarized here:
Advances in neuroscience: Being able to predict what people are going to say before they say it. Prodding the brain to elicit responses. Brain mapping which entails areas that are catered to different functions of the body and sense interpretation. Cutting the corpus callosum and seeing how people are different afterward. Brain injuries that alter people's personalities, or ability to perceive senses despite the sense organs being perfectly healthy.
Psychotherapy: Depression and psychiatric treatment of extreme mental disorders such as schizophrenia and other forms of psychopathy. Alcohols slow deterioration of the brain in alcoholics and how it directly affects their motor skills and capability to reason.
No measurable energy outside of what would chemically be predicted upon brain death emerges or is found emanating from the body. No indicator of being able to communicate with a dead consciousness.
Everything points to your consciousness forming from your brain, and without your brain, you have no consciousness. If consciousness could exist separately from the body, but it needed a physical brain to 'live', then the disentanglement of consciousness should be physically detectable. But there is no evidence.
The study of insect and mammalian brains. Do you think they're consciousness exists after death? There is no evidence of this either.
So I see tons of points that lead us to rationally conclude consciousness does not extend on after death. There is no how, where, what, or why. There is only a personal belief in the desire that it be true.
Perhaps the possibility is a function the belief itself.
I’m not claiming that our knowledge in this case is known with absolute certainty, just as most of our knowledge isn’t known with absolute certainty. I’m claiming that the evidence is known with a high degree of certainty. I understand that most of you know this, but some think that a belief/conclusion is only knowledge if it follows necessarily. This is false.
I have already given the inductive argument so there is no need to give it again. Here is the link https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/912262. This is the logic behind the argument.
Testimonial evidence can be quite weak, but in certain cases, it can be quite strong. I’m claiming that the testimonial evidence is very strong based on the variety of sources from around the world, the relative consistency of the sources, and the corroborative evidence that adds an objective component to the testimonial evidence. This objective component also dispels the notion that the experience is a hallucination, delusion, dream, lack of oxygen, etc.
Whether a person is defined as dead or not doesn’t diminish the strength of the argument. Why? Because it’s the out-of-body experience and the sensory experiences that people have that suggest that consciousness is not confined to the brain. And to think that someone can point to some brain activity to show that it’s the brain that creates consciousness is similar to pointing to a component in a radio to show that what you’re listening to is confined to the radio. It doesn't follow.
The experiences of NDErs seeing deceased relatives and people that they didn’t know were dead lends credence to the conclusion that consciousness survives death. This doesn’t even include deathbed visions where people see their loved ones come to them just before death. I don’t include these in my argument because they are so subjective, but when combined with NDEs they seem to support the idea that consciousness continues far beyond this life.
Another important point is that many of the people who have NDEs report that their experience is not diminished, which is what you might expect with a brain that isn’t getting enough oxygen or blood, in fact, it is heightened. By heightened I mean their sensory experiences are much sharper, they see colors that they haven’t seen before, and their vision is reported to be expanded (360-degree vision) in many cases. This reality seems dreamlike by comparison to what they see when out of their body. In many cases, people claim that this reality is a dumbed-down version of that reality. You would think that dying brains would have less sensory acuity than a normal brain, not more.
Finally, I want to add that I don't think that any religion fully captures the idea of life after death, so this isn't about any religious idea or doctrine. I'm certainly not religious, i.e., I don't subscribe to any religious ideology. However, there is some overlap.
:sparkle: :lol:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/912509
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-jqDHMQp_s
Generally, there must be an 'actual' near death-ness to the experience. However, there isn't a 'typical' experience so it seems pretty shoddy to even posit this as a way to explicate some kind of after-death consciousness. Seems, prima facie, not relevant.
If there were some kind of proto-typical experience (where you could calibrate for cultural baggage and get roughly the same form as with some psychedelics) then we'd get somehwere. As it is, they are closer to drug-type experiences than much else - with even less homogenaiety!
But if you'll sum up your points, I'll sum up why they don't work again.
Quoting Sam26
True. This is induction. And there are ways to evaluate whether some inductions are more cogent than other inductions.
Quoting Sam26
No, they are not.
1. Logic indicates you are making an induction, not a reasonable conclusion. Logic also indicates per the article that I linked, that the existence of NDE's does not mean that there was evidence of actual death at the time the person had the vision/dream.
2. Sensory experience has been disproven by the fact people can sink in and out of consciousness in anesthesia, and it has not been conclusively pin pointed when exactly a person had a NDE. It is not that NDE's do not happen, its that there's no indicator they are actual experiences after brain death. To conclude there is consciousness after death, one must have an example of consciousness after actual death and a return to life.
3. You only conclude a bias of testimonial evidence. You do not include the majority of cases in which people do not have NDE's when in similar near death experiences. You do not include the nightmares, or the visions of things that do not exist. You cherry pick nice and positive experiences then say, "They're all like that." They are all not. When taken as a whole, NDE's are very much like dreams and minimal conscious processing.
Quoting Sam26
Incorrect. The problem is your ignore all the counter inductions that have higher cogency. How do you explain that the majority do not have NDEs? How do you explain the NDEs that don't fit in with family and friends? Or the massive evidence that the brain is your mind, and that without the brain, there is no mind? You take a one sided biased approach and cut out any competing material, and of course it seems reasonable. That's not rational or a strong inductive argument. That's a desire you're trying to rationalize.
Quoting Sam26
Not in the least. You have had opinions, but this is flat out wrong. In no way have these been ruled out and are strong competing inductions.
Quoting Sam26
Then how do we artificially put people in comas? Or use anesthesia? Or demonstrate how alcohol poisoning can cause a person to black out? Or the fact that we have never seen consciousness in any form other than a brain?
Quoting Sam26
You don't have senses when you are unconscious. Your brain takes sensory data and interprets it. Seeing colors you haven't experienced before is not unexpected when your brain is going into survival mode and trying to interpret what is happening. You can't see in 360 degrees, but your brain can envision it.
In short, you have an inductive argument, but it has serious flaws. It also does no better than competing inductive arguments which to my mind, have far less flaws. You have a self-confidence in your argument, but self-confidence and a feeling that it is right, does not make it right. You need to look at the counters and find some answers to those. Otherwise, you're just peddling a fantasy, and no one wants to be that person.
By definition. Death is the end of living. There should be no debate.
Those who cling to the possibility, aren't thinking about life. Whether consciously or not, they are thinking that "consciousness" might continue. And not some idea of consciousness which we might share with the rest of the planet,* but the Subjective mind, and really just the Subject that Mind intermittently constructs and projects.
But not only is that impossible because that process doesn't work without the fleshy infrastructure. But that process is empty of what they think it holds while it's functioning: feelings. The body supplies that. So if words survive after the death of the individual without need of the body, then Ok. That's what we generally call history. You die and we still talk about you. But without the body's feelings, you won't "enjoy" the survival. So "you" will quickly drop away, having no reference to reality, and all that is left is history.
*e.g., an aware-ing of living and its sensations (including sense of inner images), drives (including for us bondings), movements and feelings. Maybe one could argue this organic consciousness pervades nature, is nature, and thus, yah, in that sense there is life Neverending, just moving. But that's not what they want. Is it?
Yes. I understand the sentiment to want there to be life after death. But that sentiment can be dangerous to those who spend their life looking for its truth. Even if there is some afterlife, which is by all rational evaluation impossible, it is best to live this life as if there is no continuation after. You only get one shot at this life with who you are. Don't waste it on fantasies.
Sounds like you describe a more Buddhists afterlife. No memories or feelings. Just karma essentially.
Unless we are speaking of a mythological idea of dualism, like a soul, I can't see any basis in an afterlife.
As I said, life ends, so it's not life in this afterlife. If there's any evidence or even decent hypotheses about there being a non-material "aspect" of our natural being, then that evidence or hypothesis would also have to prove/reason that this non-material aspect produces and experiences our Narratives. But we are justifiably certain that the feelings, sensations, drives and movements, are organic. So the Narratives, on our non material natures, would be empty and serve no function; like a good novel when it's closed and sitting on the shelf.
Moreover, Ockhams razor. Why an immaterial soul constructing and projecting the Narrative? Because body feels a certain way when the Subject is projected, and we end up wanting to cling to this image. So philosophers, poets, mystics and theologians have gone to pains projecting hypotheses that keep the Subject separate from what becomes reduced to a lump of flesh, leading to this idea of the possibility of its perpetuity after the flesh dies.
But it's way more simple to say body--particularly and only the human body--has developed this unique, autonomous system of images in its brain, which have the effect of displacing the organic aware-ing of sensations, feelings, drives, and movements, with stories, perceptions, emotions, love and power, and the idea of free wilful movements. When the body ends, so do these images.
Where Buddhism likely sees in this admittedly reconstructed view of afterlife, is it agrees that this Subject we cling to is just a projection, never was real to begin with, let alone the idea of its survival. And, therefore it also agrees that if we really must entertain any discussion of an afterlife, it's not going to be what the Subject causes the body to (by having specific feelings triggered) "desire", i.e., the Subject itself. If there is an afterlife it has to be the same as the before life, some pervasive aware-ing in?of? nature without the cloak of human signifiers. "Buddha Nature," too deserves the same treatment if it is real and all pervading, it has to be an aware-ing in/of nature, not some mystical, mythical, or even metaphysical entity which we can only construct out of our images.
First of all, my health and age have affected my responses. So, your conclusion that I'm avoiding you and don't have answers to your posts is incorrect. There's nothing that you've posted that's difficult to answer, and much of what you've posted shows a lack of understanding of the subject of NDEs, even the paper you posted can be addressed, although it would take more time.
Quoting Philosophim
First, I've given the criteria of a good inductive argument, and based on those criteria the inductive conclusion is overwhelmingly reasonable. (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/912262)
There is a reason why these experiences are called Near-Death and not death unless we're talking about clinical death, which is an accepted term (clinical death) in the medical community. People can continue to say that it's not death, and that's fine, but the experiences they're having coupled with the corroboration give power to their experiences. Not all NDEs happen when people are near death, some have happened quite spontaneously.
Quoting Philosophim
Just because people can sink in and out of consciousness when anesthetized doesn't invalidate the experience. There have been plenty of NDEs that have happened when there is no measurable brain activity (Pam's e.g. is one). There have also been experiences where people have described what they are seeing on various machines (e.g. in an operating room) at particular times during their experience, so it's fairly easy to know based on what they're seeing that it happened at T1 or T2.
I don't know about you, but if someone tells me that they see X during their experience and it's corroborated by doctors, nurses, staff, and family members, then that's a veridical experience. You can keep denying what millions of people are saying because you're entrenched in a materialistic worldview, but it won't change the facts. Most people generally know the difference between a real (veridical) experience and one that is not. If this wasn't so we couldn't generally rely on our sensory experiences.
Your responses demonstrate that you haven't studied these experiences, and your responses clearly show that. I've been researching this subject for about 17 years and have heard most of the counterarguments and they are some of the weakest counterarguments I've ever heard.
Quoting Philosophim
I don't know of any other testimonial evidence that would counter NDEs. Many people who are in a similar condition don't have an NDE but that hardly invalidates all the millions of people who have had the experience. That's just the nature of our experiences, some people who have similar experiences give different reports but that doesn't invalidate all other reports.
I don't cherry-pick anything, I've examined many thousands of reports that have been given from around the world and have concluded that consciousness survives death. Again, I'm not aware of NDEs that don't generally confirm an OBE, so I don't know what you're referring to.
Many NDEs haven't been studied so I pick the ones that have been studied, but that's not cherry-picking, and here's the rub, the ones that have been studied confirm what others have been saying about their experience. Any examination of testimonial evidence would do the same. So, your cherry-picking allegation is weak, to say the least.
This is all I'm going to respond to because I've addressed most of the other points you've made in other parts of the thread. What seems strange to me is that you seem to ignore so many other studies and peer-reviewed material, which at least acknowledges that many of these questions are open to many scientists (open for them, not for me). You seem to think it's an open-and-shut case. Nonsense.
I stand by my conclusion that consciousness survives death. I'll go so far as to say that consciousness is the basis for all reality and that what we are here (being human) is not our essential nature. I'll add a further point, i.e., we are here having a human experience, but it's temporary.
Sorry I can't respond to everything or everybody, I just don't have the energy nor the inclination. I'll respond and post from time to time but that's about it. Sometimes I get spurts of energy and will respond more often but that doesn't happen much.
Thanks for the effort @Philosophim
I read your argument, but it does not support your conclusion that consciousness survives death. You call your argument "inductive"; I think it would be better labeled "abductive" - because you are proposing a explanatory hypothesis that fits the facts associated with NDEs. Analyzed this way, we could consider whether or not your hypothesis is the best explanation for the available facts. You sidestep this, by simply claiming your conclusion is a reasonable inductive inference. I don't think it is reasonable, but this is shown most easily by comparing it to alternative hypotheses that better explain the available facts.
For example, most other NDEs are explainable as a form of dreaming. Relatively few out of body experiences lack reasonable natural explanations, but even if they are veridical - they are explainable as telepathy or clairvoyance
You don't consider the abundant evidence that mental activity depends on brain activity; NDEs do not demonstrate a counterexample. I previously pointed out that "no measureable brain activity" does not mean NO brain activity. So your explanatory hypothesis depends on the ad hoc assumption that mental activity can occur without brain activity.
Finally, I can't help but think you may be influenced by a desire to live on, beyond death. This may be influencing your choice of explanatory hypothesis, and the subset of evidence you choose to consider.
If they are not difficult to answer, simply answer them.
Quoting Sam26
And about my notes that you have several other competing inductive arguments out there that contradict and invalidate yours? I never said you didn't make an inductive argument. I demonstrated it doesn't rise above other more reasonable inductive arguments.
Quoting Sam26
Are you understanding my points? I never denied people don't have these experiences. I denied that they logically lead to a conclusion that there was life after death, both rationally, and do not hold inductively when compared to other stronger inductive arguments that show our consciousness does not live on after death.
Quoting Sam26
I have, and your conclusions about them do not hold water. They are fun, but do not lead to the conclusion that there is life after death when competing with other inductive arguments that demonstrate we do not. You are only looking at one side, and have not given me evidence of any other.
Quoting Sam26
I noted my Aunt had a near death experience during surgery. She felt like she was being tortured by demons. We didn't call up the NDE people to report it. She died a few weeks later btw. She's gone forever.
Here's an article on NDEs that aren't so nice. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6173534/
But I haven't heard you mention anything like these. Either you've cherry picked, haven't looked hard enough.
How about the studies in which they tested people's experiences by causing them to enter into unconsciousness and similar situations?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-near-death-experiences-reveal-about-the-brain/
"Scientists have videotaped, analyzed and dissected the loss and subsequent recovery of consciousness in highly trained individuals—U.S. test pilots and NASA astronauts in centrifuges during the cold war (recall the scene in the 2018 movie First Man of a stoic Neil Armstrong, played by Ryan Gosling, being spun in a multiaxis trainer until he passes out). At around five times the force of gravity, the cardiovascular system stops delivering blood to the brain, and the pilot faints. About 10 to 20 seconds after these large g-forces cease, consciousness returns, accompanied by a comparable interval of confusion and disorientation (subjects in these tests are obviously very fit and pride themselves on their self-control).
The range of phenomena these men recount may amount to “NDE lite”—tunnel vision and bright lights; a feeling of awakening from sleep, including partial or complete paralysis; a sense of peaceful floating; out-of-body experiences; sensations of pleasure and even euphoria; and short but intense dreams, often involving conversations with family members, that remain vivid to them many years afterward. These intensely felt experiences, triggered by a specific physical insult, typically do not have any religious character (perhaps because participants knew ahead of time that they would be stressed until they fainted)."
Or
"Many neurologists have noted similarities between NDEs and the effects of a class of epileptic events known as complex partial seizures. "
"More than 150 years later neurosurgeons are able to induce such ecstatic feelings by electrically stimulating part of the cortex called the insula in epileptic patients who have electrodes implanted in their brain. This procedure can help locate the origin of the seizures for possible surgical removal. Patients report bliss, enhanced well-being, and heightened self-awareness or perception of the external world. Exciting the gray matter elsewhere can trigger out-of-body experiences or visual hallucinations. This brute link between abnormal activity patterns—whether induced by the spontaneous disease process or controlled by a surgeon’s electrode—and subjective experience provides support for a biological, not spiritual, origin. The same is likely to be true for NDEs."
Quoting Sam26
Who?
Quoting Sam26
It sounds like you don't have a lot of time left. I've been harsh on the subject material, but not on you.
You may not see it as a gift, but really, it is. You will die. I will die. And that will be it. So don't waste your time. Fill it with family, friends, loved ones. Explore, fulfill your last curiosities, and do the things you've always wanted to do. Because after its over, its done. That's why we come here. To really think about things and sift the lies, illusions, and artificial hopes from reality. A life lived real is a really lived life. Good luck and enjoy your time.
It’s the experience itself, the claim that people have had an OBE, and their experiences while having an OBE, which is the central point of my argument. It’s what people see during their NDE that supports their belief that they had an OBE. What constitutes an NDE are certain common characteristics laid out in the Greyson scale in the following link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271857657_The_Near-Death_Experience_Scale (Citation: Greyson, B. (2007). The near-death experience as a focus of clinical attention. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 195(10), 883-890.)
There have also been comparative studies done by Dr. Parnia (professor of Medicine at the NYU Langone Medical Center). This study (“Aware—AWAreness during Resuscitation—A Prospective study” published in Resuscitation.) used the Greyson scale as a guide to compare the experiences of cardiac arrest survivors and whether they were genuine NDEs as opposed to hallucinations or dream-like experiences.
Other studies, viz., by Thonnard et al. (2013) source “Characteristics of NDE memories as compared to real or imagined NDEs” published in PLoS ONE explored the neurological basis of NDEs and also used the Greyson scale to determine if the memories were more consistent with real memories or with the memories of imagined events.
So, the Greyson scale has been used as a reliable source for many studies to determine between genuine NDEs and other phenomena.
Along with the Greyson scale, there have been a variety of other studies that show the common characteristics of NDEs. These studies include, but are not limited to the following:
1) Noyes and Slymen’s Near-Death Experience Scale (Russell Noyes and Donald Slymen)
2) Ring’s Weighted Core Experience Index (Kenneth Ring)
3) Zaleski’s Narrative Analysis (Carol Zasleski)
4) Moody’s Common Elements of NDEs (Raymond Moody)
5) Kellehear’s Cross-Cultural Studies (Allan Kellehear)
Besides the common characteristic studies that have been done from a variety of sources, other studies confirm the objective nature of NDEs and hence the veridical nature of these experiences. Many of these individuals were in a state where normal perceptions should have been impossible or very difficult to explain.
Quoting Philosophim
The question is, “Do you understand my points?” If people are having these experiences, i.e., they are veridical, then my conclusion follows based on the numbers, variety, and truth of testimonials (corroborative evidence and consistency of reports). I used the word veridical for a reason, because if you’re acknowledging that the experiences are real (veridical), then how can you deny the reports? Unless you’re simply saying that the experiences are real but not veridical. If you’re saying that they are veridical but that they can be explained in another way, then you haven’t given good reasons to suppose that’s the case. The paper you cited doesn’t take into account much of the research that has been done and oversimplifies the NDE research. As I said, I’ve been studying these accounts for many years and have read many of the counterarguments, most try to explain the memory reports in very dubious ways, which I and many others have found wanting. Many of the memory counterarguments are only speculating about how these memories might have occurred.
To argue that my argument doesn’t “…logically lead to [my] conclusion…” you have to demonstrate that the premises aren’t true, and you’ve failed miserably at that. At best your inductive arguments are weak, even the paper you cited is weak. Moreover, you seem to ignore the many studies that have been done to support the truth of my premises. We can go back and forth about the research, but I don’t think it will solve whose research is better, which is why I go back to the testimonial reports. For most people, after listening to many reports, and I have read and listened to more than 5000 reports, they speak for themselves. Any normal person after hearing corroborative and consistent testimonial evidence is going to concede to the veridical nature of the reports which leads to the conclusion (whether you do or not, it doesn’t matter) that consciousness is not confined to the brain, and the contention that consciousness is not limited to the body.
Another important point is the nature of consciousness itself, i.e., can consciousness be explained by simply appealing to brain functions? The answer for me at least, and for many other scientists and philosophers, is no. I like many of the points David Chalmers raises in his article The Puzzle of Consciousness in which he distinguishes between understanding many of the cognitive functions, such as perception, memory, and learning (the easy problem of consciousness), which much can be explained through science; and the problem of trying to address our subjective experiences (the hard problem of consciousness), viz., what it’s like to be conscious. It’s not just awareness but that we are aware of being aware (my point).
In Nagel’s 1974 paper, What Is It Like to Be a Bat Nagel also explores subjective experiences and the nature of consciousness. He concludes that consciousness has an irreducible aspect, and I agree based on my studies which go beyond what I’ve given in this thread. He further concludes that the physicalist approach to consciousness is not sufficient to address our subjective experiences and that we need a fundamentally new approach to concepts and methods. This paper agrees with many of Chalmers' points.
Chalmers goes on to explain that there is a gap between what we can understand and explain via physical science and trying to explain our subjective experiences. This is why some argue that our subjective experiences are an illusion (my point not Chalmers), because of the difficulty in explaining subjective experience. Chalmers concludes that although we have made significant progress in our understanding of the easy problem of consciousness, the hard problem remains. It’s a profound mystery. I agree and would point out that although I believe it can be logically demonstrated that consciousness is not a brain function, we are still at a loss to explain the nature of consciousness. I speculate that consciousness is the creative force behind the universe and that consciousness resides in a place where the laws of consciousness and creation are much different from the laws of this universe.
Chalmers proposes that there are three possible ways to solve the hard problem of consciousness. First is the idea that even if we don’t have all the answers presently, sometime in the future science will be able to explain consciousness. This is the optimistic view of reductionism, given enough time the problem will be solved. Chalmers also points out a second way which he refers to as mysterianism, which is a form of materialism or physicalism. This is the idea that consciousness is a physical process, but we will never understand it. It’s a mystery. And third is dualism, which just distinguishes, basically, between the mental and the physical, and the mental encompasses consciousness. Chalmers also makes the point that all of the work in neuroscience only addresses the easy problem of consciousness. The hard problem of consciousness is barely addressed, if at all. Most research doesn’t even come close to addressing the hard problem, and this should at least give you pause about what can be said about the point of origin of consciousness. To claim that we know how consciousness arises is simply false, we’re not even close to answering this question.
I believe that NDEs do show that consciousness is not confined to the brain, but this doesn’t address the problem of what is consciousness. Although I believe consciousness is the source of this reality (our observable universe), I don’t believe we have a clue about the nature of consciousness or its source, if there is a source.
Although this post doesn’t address every question or challenge it gives more information to support my conclusions and raises other considerations.
This is very important. Actual recorded death is not near death. Near death experiences cannot be used as an example for consciousness existing outside of the brain, as the brain would still be alive.
Quoting Sam26
I am not questioning that people have an out of body experience. The question is whether this out of body experience can be pinpointed at happening at the exact time of brain death, and that it is not merely a vivid dream of consciousness. Not near death, but during brain death. As I've noted, there have been no cases of brain death and NDE time.
Quoting Sam26
I genuinely appreciate the literature. But I don't think you're understanding what I'm stating again. I'm not denying NDE's happen. No one with even a little bit of medical understanding does. What I'm denying is that they are any proof of consciousness actually leaving the body. As I noted with my last two links, NDE's can be replicated medically by brain stimulation and temporary oxygen deprivation. In no case has there been a confirmation of someone actually seeing their body. A very easy test is once the patient is unconscious, a person places some object or writing behind them where their eyes cannot see. If the person is actually having a real out of body experience, they'll see it. No out of body experience has ever been able to accurately report this.
Quoting Sam26
You can just use the word 'true' instead of veridical, that's fine. No, your conclusion does not follow from NDE's being real. You have to demonstrate the NDE's happen on brain death, that out of body experiences are able to accurately report the way the room was at brain death, and that NDE's cannot be replicated by temporary oxygen deprivation that has little risk of death, or can't be duplicated by stimulating the brain. All of these demonstrate that this is a brain function, not consciousness leaving the brain and coming back in.
Have you ever had a vivid dream before? I ask, because some people don't. A vivid dream can feel incredibly real. I have sometimes come out of dreams thinking that I was in another world. Of course, I wasn't. You have to understand that your brain simulates everything. The light entering your eyes is not vision. The brains interpretation of it and construction is. I can envision things when I shut my eyes and have vivid daydreams. My consciousness is not leaving my brain, its just an aspect of the brain.
Quoting Sam26
No, the subjective experience is real. There is no objective demonstration that a person has actually left their body and seen the room as it is changed away from their bodies eyes. There is no objective confirmation that someone's OBE happened during brain death. Just like when I had a vivid dream of fighting a gorilla and woke up, my consciousness did not travel to another dimension where I fought an actual gorilla.
Quoting Sam26
Feel free to cite some counters then. This is too generic for me and I'll need more details please. Your experience and whether things are wanting are irrelevant, just like my opinions on the matter are irrelevant. Cite facts and studies that demonstrate why or why not NDEs are valid/invalid.
Quoting Sam26
No, I don't. You've already done that for me. You're already stated you're using an inductive argument, which by definition, is not true. Its a prediction, or supposition. To have a viable inductive argument, you need to demonstrate why it overrides facts that counter your induction, or demonstrate why its more rational than other competing inductive arguments that have competing or contrasting conclusions with yours.
I have not denied NDE's exist. I've demonstrated that they are not evidence of consciousness surviving the body due to the fact that no OBE's can be objectively confirmed with tests, and we can simulate NDE's at lower levels of trauma with neurology and oxygen deprivation. Not to mention the mounds of medical research that demonstrate you are your brain. Neuroscience, psychadelics, psychiatrics, and even numerous cases of brain trauma have all demonstrated this.
Quoting Sam26
For scientists, this is incorrect. "You are your brain," is the only reasonable scientific conclusion with what we know. People test and hypothesize that there is more, but none of these have borne fruit. A hypothesis is not a scientific conclusion. As for philosophers, yes. You can find a philosopher that will believe almost anything. The question is whether they can give a reasonable argument for their beliefs.
Lets address Chalmers. Yes, I'm very familiar with him. Quoting Sam26
Two points:
1. There has been nearly a lifetime of brain research since he published his 1974 paper. We barely had basic computers back then. We have made immense strides. Research neuroscience, not philosophy.
2. You misinterpret what he means by "the physicalist approach to consciousness is not sufficient". Chalmers to this date does not deny that the brain is where consciousness comes from. What he's noting is that our study of the brain in particular to date, cannot be used as a model to explain the subjective experience. Let me explain further.
How you subjectively experience the world, and how a bat subjectively experiences the world are obviously different. Lets say that we further science to the point where we are able to perfectly replicate a bat's brain, and your brain. Can we still be the bat? No. Can we still be you? No. We would ask your brain, "How are you feeling?" and simulated neurons 44-100 would light up. Does that tell us what its like to be the experience itself of neurons 44-100 lighting up? No.
Lets say we objectively knock out the consciousness of your simulated brain by stimulating neurons 1-10. And we can do it every time. Objectively, you're unconscious. But what does it feel like subjectively? We'll never know. Its impossible to be the thing we're studying. That's what Chalmer's nailed. He did not deny in any way that consciousness is not generated from your brain.
The fact we can never objectively know what its like to be a subjective conscious is the hard problem. The idea that consciousness comes from your brain is the easy problem. People confuse this all the time and think that there some rational notion that we are not our brains. It has been confirmed that we are our brains for some time now, and if an inductive argument is going to challenge that, it has a lot more that it needs to tackle then what you've provide.
Quoting Sam26
I may disagree with you, but I appreciate the write up and the citations.
This is a bit funny and a bit condescending, but I got a laugh out of it so that’s good. The illness I alluded to is something I’ve had all my life, but it’s not like I’m on my deathbed. Of course, turning 74 in September does mean my life is getting shorter and shorter. I’m not afraid of death, and to give me advice on living and dying is quite condescending as if I don’t understand what’s important. I guess I need advice since I don’t think about such things (ha-ha). You probably mean well, so I don’t take offense.
I find it curious that some people think that people who believe there is an afterlife are somehow afraid that their existence is coming to an end, so we grasp at straws (beliefs) to comfort ourselves. We can always go back and forth on the psychological factors contributing to our beliefs, but none of us escape this problem. The psychological reasons/causes for what we all believe are very strong, often overriding what’s logical. I considered myself a Christian for many years and what can be a more powerful belief than thinking you’re a child of God going to heaven and escaping hell? I rejected the belief (not all the beliefs, but the resurrection, that Christ was God, hell, demons, etc.) after reconsidering the evidence. That means that many of the people in my family, friends, and others would look at me in quite a different way. I’ve never been afraid to go against the grain, and such is the case with my beliefs in the afterlife. I would say that I don’t care what others think, but that’s not quite true, I do care what some people think, but the point is that it’s difficult to buck any system of beliefs that have dominated one’s life for years. The point of saying this is that my life belies the idea that I would hold to such beliefs for what you seem to suggest.
The only thing that matters to me is the evidence or good reasons that support my argument, not some fear of ceasing to exist, fear of hell, or some other fear. That said, I’m not superhuman, of course I have certain fears. For example, I don’t want to die in agony or some such thing, but I think the actual point of death (that moment) is more peaceful than most people think. And if we cease to exist after the death of the body, so be it, it won’t matter, will it? Of course, I don’t believe that to be the case, in fact, I know it’s not the case.
Finally, your epistemology relies too heavily on the power of science to explain, as if epistemological considerations of science are paramount to knowing something is the case. However, much of what we know is through everyday testimonial evidence, which is why I think this argument is so powerful. We can go back and forth, no it’s not, yes it is, but I think my argument continues to stand as strong evidence for an afterlife.
That said, I appreciate the responses.
I did not mean it to be condescending. I am a person who has learned over time that you can never assume anything about other people. So I talk to them as if they don't know things, not as a means to insult, but to provide opportunity in case they don't. I am glad you understand how valuable life is. :)
Quoting Sam26
Some people think this. Not all. When having a conversation with a stranger, to me its about trying to find the most value out of a conversation. If I know you know the value of life, then I will never mention it again. But if you don't and its not addressed? What good is it to inform a person that there is no afterlife if they don't value the life they live today?
We do not have tone or body language while communicating. All we have is text, and of course our interpretation of that other person's intentions. I have tried to be clear that while I do not believe the argument for consciousness existing post death has any credence, I do not have any issue with YOU.
You've taken the time to present an argument fairly, you've been polite for a conversation that conflicts with our world view, and you've replied to many of my points. These forums should never be an insult or ego fest, but a place where we can talk seriously and truthfully with one another.
Quoting Sam26
Correct. And I am not an exception to this rule. I too was raised Christian, but through questioning and having honest conversations with many other people, I found that it wasn't viable.
Quoting Sam26
Quoting Sam26
I have formal training in philosophy, I have written many of my own approaches to philosophical problems, and have continued to dabble as a hobby all my life. I was both a math teacher, and now program for a living. My point is that I have a long period of training in life in logical thinking.
Now, I also am aware that it doesn't mean a thing. Its the arguments that stand. You strike me as a thinker in earlier stages of development. This is not an insult to your intelligence. Good thinking for most people takes training. It takes years of work. You can never be satisfied, and I seek to improve in little ways every day.
One problem I see is that you are still stuck on how to correctly use inductive thinking. If you re-read, that's really my focus. Inductive thinking is by definition, not necessarily true. So even the best of inductive arguments is not considered a sound argument, but a supposition, or conjecture at best.
Considering there are several competing conjectures that your inductive argument must address and overcome, its not in a good position.
Second, you're assuming the argument that I'm trying to make instead of really understanding it. I want to re-emphasize again, that I am not questioning whether people experience NDE's or OBEs. If you re-read, you seem to want to re-argue their realness when I've already long accepted that they're real. My point is that a personal experience does not mean strong or conclusive evidence about objective reality.
That's pretty obvious if you take any other scenario besides NDEs. I've dreamt that I've flown before, and its been found in at least one study that 1/3rd of recipients have dreamed of flying. https://slate.com/human-interest/2016/11/dream-flying-says-something-about-how-you-think.html
Now, does that mean that when we dream our consciousness actually travels to another realm where we can fly? No. Its just a common brain activity while we sleep. Personal experience is not evidence of objective reality. Personal experience is out interpretation of objective reality. And just because we interpret reality a certain way, it does not mean it is a certain way. Ever seen an optical illusion? That's our interpretation ability going overdrive, the illusion is not actually happening in reality apart from ourselves.
My emphasis is not on 'science', but deduction and objective testing. Science is a good go to, because articles are peer reviewed. Meaning they must hold to high standards from the rest of the community, and are always open to having their research examined and questioned. We want to believe in the power of induction and personal experience, and while it can be useful in many instances, it also has many known flaws.
So your argument has several problems it needs to solve. How do you reconcile the fact that we can duplicate NDEs in neurology and oxygen deprivation scenarios? How do you reconcile the fact that no OBE has ever been shown to see something that was placed outside of their bodies field of view during the time in which the NDE should be occurring? There are real problems that if not solved, cut the inductive argument that consciousness survives our death into pieces.
So, feel free to try to answer those. If you can, awesome. But not answering those and insisting your inductive argument trumps all others logically isn't true. The current and most logical conclusion we can make with the information we know of today is that consciousness is a function of the brain, and when the brain dies, your consciousness dies as well. Feel free to keep trying to prove it wrong, but you have a lot of work to still do.
I guess I have to defend my background in philosophy. If you had researched this forum, you would know that I’m not “…a thinker in earlier stages of development…” I’ve been studying philosophy for over 45 years, with a degree (B.A. in Philosophy). I’m quite familiar with symbolic logic and I know some modal logic which means that I know something about correct reasoning, including how to analyze arguments. In the last 20 years, I’ve spent much of my time studying epistemology, linguistic analysis, and Ludwig Wittgenstein’s later philosophy, especially his final notes called On Certainty. I consider my knowledge of philosophy to be at least the level of someone with a Master’s degree. I started working on my Master’s degree in 1982 but didn’t finish it.
Quoting Philosophim
Yes, I know that’s your focus, and anyone with a little background in logic knows that inductive reasoning is not necessarily true. Only the conclusions of good deductive arguments follow necessarily. Inductive reasoning is either strong or weak based on the evidence. Most of our reasoning, including science, is inductive. A word about sound arguments (soundness is a property of deductive arguments, it includes validity and the truth of the premises), in logic it’s used as a criterion to describe good deductive arguments, although the truth of the premises of an inductive argument is parallel to soundness in deductive arguments.
Quoting Philosophim
I tried to address this in another post, but you seem to ignore what I’m saying. You say the experiences are real, but there are two senses of real involved in my argument. First, real could mean that they are real in the sense that any experience is real, including hallucinations, dreams, delusions, etc. However, I use the word veridical as opposed to real because real isn’t as precise. Most researchers who talk about NDEs, whether for or against, want to answer the question, “Are NDEs veridical?” This is the question at hand.
Quoting Philosophim
Your use of real is that the experiences are not veridical (not part of objective reality), i.e., that they are similar to dreams or hallucinations which are real experiences but not veridical. I’ve assumed all along that this is what you probably meant. Also, when I answer your points, I’m trying to address not only you but others who are reading this thread, which is why I point this out.
Quoting Philosophim
You don’t seem to understand that most arguments are inductive (including science), not deductive. Moreover, you have never given a deductive argument. You also dismiss the power of inductive reasoning by saying it has many known flaws. I’m not sure what you mean by “known flaws” apart from it doesn’t give us absolute knowledge. Obviously, weak inductive arguments are flawed because they lack the kind of strength that would give us good reasons to believe their conclusions. Strong inductive reasoning is not flawed in terms of the strength of its conclusion. Most of science is inductive and the paper you cited is also inductive. You don’t seem to have a good background in logic because you fail to give inductive reasoning its proper place in the reasoning process, you, at the very least diminish its power. It is quite obvious that what you said about yourself in terms of dabbling in philosophy is true, and it shows. Philosophy for me is quite beyond being a hobby or something I dabble in.
Quoting Philosophim
This is just silly. It doesn’t comport with just a basic understanding of logic. Moreover, again, soundness is a property of deductive arguments because it means that the argument is valid and the premises are true. For someone to say, “You strike me as a thinker in earlier stages of development,” is laughable given these comments on logic.
Quoting Philosophim
Just because we can duplicate NDEs, it doesn’t follow that NDEs are not objectively real. It just means we know what things can trigger similar aspects of the NDE. It also just means that the brain plays a role in consciousness as we know it. It doesn’t follow that duplicating NDEs demonstrates that consciousness is solely a construct of the brain.
For someone who claims to have studied NDEs and who continues to say things like, “How do you reconcile the fact that no OBE has ever been shown to see something that was placed outside of their bodies field of view during the time in which the NDE should be occurring?” - is completely mystifying to me. There have been many corroborative NDE accounts of people seeing and hearing things that are nowhere near their bodies. Just a cursory study of NDEs should dispel this belief. You can continue to deny that this is the case, but there are just too many accounts that contradict this belief. People have heard conversations in other parts of the hospital, have heard and seen things happening many miles from where their body is located, and have seen people in their NDE that they didn’t know were dead, this happens all the time.
At least you tried to give an argument, I’ll give you credit for that, but you haven’t diminished the strength of my argument one iota. Your arguments are very weak, and your conclusions don’t follow from the facts of NDEs. The truth of the premises of my argument stands based on the following:
The fourth criterion is the truth of the premises. To know if the premises are true, we need corroboration of the testimonial evidence, a high degree of consistency, and firsthand testimony. In all or most of these cases, it seems clear that we have all three. We have millions of accounts that can be corroborated by family members, friends, doctors, nurses, and hospice workers. Corroboration is important in establishing some objectivity to what is a very subjective experience. It gives credence and credibility to the accounts. One example of corroboration is given in Pam's NDE out of Atlanta, GA, which can be seen on YouTube, although the video is old.
Consistency is also important to the establishment of the truth of the premises. We have a high degree of consistency across a wide variety of reports. What are these consistent reports?
1) Seeing one's body from a third person perspective, that is, from outside one's body, and hearing and seeing what is happening around their bodies.
2) Having intense feelings of being loved, intense feelings of peace, and the absence of pain.
3) Seeing a light or tunnel in the distance and feeling that one is being drawn to the light, or moving towards the light.
4) Seeing deceased loved ones.
5) Seeing beings of light that one may interpret as Jesus, Mary, Muhammad, an angel, or just a loving being that one may feel connected with.
6) Heightened sensory experiences, namely, feeling that one is having an ultra-real experience, as opposed to a dream or a hallucination. This happens even when there is no measurable brain activity.
7) Communication that happens mind-to-mind, not verbally.
8) Seeing beautiful landscapes.
9) Seeing people who are getting ready or waiting to be born.
10) Having a life review by a loving being who is not judgmental, but simply showing you how important it is to love, and the importance of your actions on those you come in contact with.
11) Feeling as though one has returned home. This is also confirmed by people who were told they chose to come to Earth.
12) A feeling of oneness with everything, as though we are part of one consciousness.
13) Memories of who they are return, as though they temporarily forgot who they were, and where they came from.
14) There are also reports of knowledge returning, and many questions being answered as quickly as they think of the question.
15) Understanding that ultimately we cannot be harmed and that everything is perfect as it is.
16) That we are eternal beings simply entering into one of many realities. We are simply higher beings who choose to have a human experience. Ultimately, we are not human, being human is just a temporary experience. Our humanity ends when we die, then we assume our original form.
Another aid in establishing the truth of the testimonial evidence is firsthand accounts, as opposed to hearsay. There are thousands of firsthand accounts being reported by the International Association of Near-Death Studies, and according to polling, there are many millions of firsthand accounts.
We have to prove this every time we make an argument. The proof is in the argument, not our past accomplishments.
Quoting Sam26
Very true. But you have to give an inductive argument that rises to the level of scientific consideration. I can inductively believe the moon has little men living inside of it, but its not rigorous or cogent enough to be given serious consideration. Good inductive arguments base as much of their argument on deduction as possible, and only go to induction when it is the only choice. This is different from a hypotheses, which is a claim that has not been tested yet.
You can claim, "Consciousness exists beyond death," as a hypotheses, but then it has to be actually tested and confirmed at least once. This confirmation must be rigorous, and once again, involve as much logic and deduction as possible. You claims pass a hypothesis, but I have not seen any confirmation of your claims. Currently the hypothesis, "Our consciousness does not survive death," has been confirmed in applicable tests. You'll need to show me actual tests that passed peer review, and can be repeated that show our consciousness exists beyond death. To my mind, there are none, but I am open to read if you cite one.
Quoting Sam26
Certainly, I speak to everyone as if they are a layman until they show me otherwise. Most people do not need the technical context of the word in logic. 'Sound' to the layman is often understood as 'An argument confirmed to be correct'. I've reiterated my point above demonstrating that your inductive argument is at best a hypothesis that has not passed the rigorous testing needed to counter the current conclusion in science that consciousness does not survive death.
Quoting Sam26
Knowledge of vocabulary in expert contexts has nothing to do with thinking. Thinking is the strength of our arguments when both sides are on the same contextual vocabulary. I do not see how your arguments have met the criterion I've noted above to be considered more than an unconfirmed hypothesis.
Quoting Sam26
Of course being able to duplicate NDEs does not mean they are not real. But it also doesn't demonstrate that they are real apart from subjective experience. Being able to duplicate NDEs means
1. We can set up situations to test NDEs.
2. We can monitor the brain and observe how 'dead' it is.
In the tests that I am aware of, no one has ever been able to observe anything in the room outside of their vision, or confirm outside noises that cannot penetrate the room during the specified time frame. That's a huge blow to the idea that NDE's are more than simply subjective experiences like dreams.
Further, NDE's can be duplicated merely under brain 'stress' in which the brain is still very much alive and active. How can one have a consciousness that both leaves the brain and is in the brain at the same time? I suppose if there was a particular location of the brain that contained consciousness, we could coodinate the reported time of an OBE by what was happening in the room and find a particular brain region that goes dim so we can say, "That's the location consciousness resides". To my knowledge, that hasn't happened yet either.
Another point is that visual and auditory imaging is processed through the brain and the senses. If consciousness left your brain, how is it seeing or hearing? Even if it could receive light or detect the vibrations in the air, wouldn't the perception be different from a brain if you're not getting the information from a brain? The fact that its as a brain would imagine, and the fact that its OBEs have not picked up a confirmed sight or noise outside of visual or auditory range, leads much more tot he idea that an OBE is not actually happening outside of a subjective brain experience.
Quoting Sam26
Cite a scientific article that has been peer reviewed, proper control and variable setup, and has been repeated with the same success elsewhere and you have a point. Don't be baffled. Just point out the studies.
Quoting Sam26
If this is in a non-scientific setting, its useful as a means to explore a hypothesis, but nothing more. Cite a reputable article in a controlled setting and you'll have something.
Quoting Sam26
I responded to this a few posts back with an article that demonstrated why the claims were not enough to confirm an actual OBE. Feel free to refute them, no statute of limitations here! :)
Quoting Sam26
Again, all this proves is a subjective consistency in some people, while as you've noticed in The Near Death experience paper you cited, there are many people who also do not have, or have very different NDE experiences. Only about half have OBEs, while the majority have variations of pleasant feelings. Considering OBEs have not been show to be objectively real, the majority having pleasant feelings when under oxygen deprivation or other slowed brain activity is hardly a slam dunk argument that consciousness is surviving outside of the brain.
Again, everything except Pam that you have cited is evidence of a shared subjective experience people have, NOT an objective confirmation that consciousness is actually leaving the brain, making observations, then returning to the brain after. Pam is again, a great example of something which lends to a hypothesis. But testing is where objectivity is determined. And unless you can give such testing, your argument that consciousness survives outside of the brain as an objective reality has no real evidence.
That said, thanks for the responses.
No, there has been subjective testimony in an uncontrolled setting. Objectively, that testimony has occurred. That does not mean that the perception of what happened means that what they interpreted was objectively real. For example, in the cases in which patients have claimed to see or hear things that sound like they are in the room in uncontrolled settings, it is unknown at what time they had those experiences. If a person is going into anesthesia or coming out of it, consciousness can return at points that are not fully registered to the disoriented individual. But I have already gone over these tests, so will not repeat myself.
A further case in point: Psychics.
I can gather tons of testimonial evidence that certain people have psychic powers. They're able to repeat them in front of people repeatedly, and people would swear they have powers. Much like magicians. But, take any psychic and put them in a controlled lab setting, and you find they're frauds. I'm not saying they didn't objectively have these experiences, same with people who have NDEs and OBEs. Its whether what they are subjectively interpreting matches with objective reality, "I actually left my body and truly observed the room as it is" that needs to be confirmed and has not.
Quoting Sam26
You do not need peer reviewed studies to determine objective corroboration with seeing psychics or magicians either. Observation from many subjects in an uncontrolled and tested setting has never been enough evidence to determine any objective conclusions as to whether their perception of the situation matches with objective reality.
Again, you keep making the wrong logical leap. You think that because many people say something in an uncontrolled setting, that their perceptions and beliefs about what happened match objective reality. That could not be further from the truth. At best, you have a situation that generates a hypothesis that needs to be tested. And in every testing case that I am aware of with OBE, it has been found that the person's subjective experience does not conform with objective reality. your argument is the equivalent of a crowd at a David Copperfield performance swearing that he objectively levitated off the ground because that's what everyone saw.
Either you are dodging my point, or you are simply do not understand it. As a person with a background in philosophy, it should be crystal clear to you by now. If you do not provide any evidence that these subjective interpretations of reality have been confirmed as objective realities in controlled settings, then your argument has failed as an assertion. It is a hypothesis, no more, and cannot stand against other the contrary hypothesis that has been confirmed as of this day: "Consciousness does not survive death".
https://youtu.be/NVsBFOB7H44
Quoting Philosophim
:100: :up:
:up:
Specifically, subjective experience overflows or transcends controlled settings exactly as concrete reality overflows and transcends the artificially constrained environments within which alone experimental science proceeds (and which render all scientific results as merely a set of ever-improving approximations).
I think the whole idea of consciousness "surviving death" is misleading. What is plausible is that consciousness transcends the apparent physical boundaries of the individual organism. It is a feature of a larger system. It isn't so much about surviving death as never having been entirely constrained by the limits of the purely individual organism to begin with. Consciousness, in its essence, is imminently trans-individual.
If so, then what makes "consciousness" mine? If it's not mine, then why should "consciousness" matter to me? If, however, "consciousness" is mine, then what does "trans-individual" mean and why should it matter to me?
I watched a small murder of crows spooked from their foraging recently. They dispersed in a strategic fashion, the majority heading to a distant safe perch, two scouts remaining closer to the scene. All the while calling and responding to one another. It was evidently highly coordinated, a social entity, an organism, a macroscopic brain.
We are unquestionably already cooperative collective entities. Cells form organisms form colonies. There is no individual apart from the collective, nor vice-versa.
Thought...must presuppose communication.
Man is essentially a social animal.
~ Charles Sanders Peirce
That's not what I said. Maybe it is true that David Copperfield really levitated that day. Its a given that what we subjectively experience may, or may not be true. Its about whether we have the proper evidence to claim that our interpretation of that subjective experience is in alignment with what really happened. Given that we can duplicate and test NDEs, it is only reasonable that we test and use those findings to figure out what is going on in reality when people have these experiences.
Quoting Sam26
We have billions of people that look into the sky and see that the Sun travels around the Earth. The Sun rises in the East, and sets in the West. No one is saying we don't have that unified and confirmed subjective experience. But is our interpretation of that subjective experience true? No. It turns out that the Earth actually orbits the sun. But from our limited perspectives, and can feel like its the other way around.
Your problem is one of epistemology. I encourage you to open up your field of study into it if it was not your original focus. That was my field of study when I got my degrees years ago. I have my own take on epistemology here if you're interested. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1
Quoting Philosophim
:up: :up:
Anecdotal, magical thinking dogmas abound (despite alleged philosophy graduate.studies). Geocentric flat earthers, after all, are violently allergic to counter-evidence / sound counter-arguments.
Maybe, but one crow does not look out of the eyes of another, any more than when @180 Proof peers into his soul, I feel like an asshole.
EDIT: I don't think @180 Proof really wants to be arguing for the privacy of experience, but maybe he does.
Nothing, I suggest. What makes you 180 Proof is not consciousness, but your body, history, emotions, etc. Consciousness bears subjectivity, but not character/individuation. But this is paradoxical, I concede.
No doubt.
Quoting bert1
My questions were for @Pantagruel to clarify his specific statement which he cannot because it's gibberish. And your response, bert, isn't "paradoxical", just more semantic jugglery.
I'm learning to live with it
Most of what people tell us about their sensory experiences is trustworthy. If this wasn’t the case we would be reduced to silence. This doesn’t mean that we just accept everything people say, it just means that most of what people relay to us is reliable; and since it’s generally reliable along with our sensory experiences it’s a genuine epistemological category along with other ways of acquiring knowledge. This way of knowing is much more pervasive than even science. It doesn’t have the glamour of science or the creative power of science, at least seemingly so, but its power in our lives is undeniable.
One can always point to counter-examples where large groups of people believed X and their belief or beliefs turned out to be false. However, this does nothing to the argument that testimonial evidence or our sensory experiences are generally reliable, which is the bedrock of NDE testimonials. If such examples diminished the effectiveness of the general reliability of such justifications, then it would also diminish sciences’ ability to be an effective way of justifying their beliefs or theories because science depends on testimony, sensory experience (observation), mathematics, and logic to validate many of their experiments. If you removed sensory experiences from science, it would collapse.
My approach is simple, in that I’m applying Occam’s Razor to the evidence, i.e., the simplest explanation is probably the best explanation. This is how we approach most testimonial evidence in our lives. This is not to say that science isn’t helpful because it is, but that science is by its very nature materialistic, although that is slowly changing. Moreover, the tools of most scientists are not conducive to the study of consciousness because consciousness in my estimation is not materialistic, and this nonmaterialistic aspect can be understood with a simple understanding of our subjective experiences.
The truth of the matter is that for many materialists no amount of evidence would convince them because they’re so entrenched in their beliefs. This is also true of religious ideology; no amount of counterevidence would dissuade them because they’re so dogmatically entrenched in their beliefs. Nothing seems to falsify such beliefs, which is mostly the result of dogmatism. Dogmatism in many cases is the enemy of truth.
NDEs have the same structure that any veridical experience would have, i.e., they all show slightly different variations that fit the general structure of any veridical experience. This in itself isn’t strong evidence that the experiences are veridical, but it adds to the overall picture that the experiences are veridical. In other words, it’s exactly what you would expect from veridical experiences. Whereas in a hallucination, for example, you wouldn’t find the consistency of experience, nor the corroborative aspects (objective components) that you find in NDEs/OBEs.
My epistemological point of view is that we rely too much on science as some be-all and end-all of knowledge and this just isn’t the case. Most might agree with this epistemological point of view and yet their responses betray their reliance on science as their go-to response. Science is just one more way of using logic, sensory experience, mathematics, and experimentation to answer questions about physical reality. This isn’t to say that science is not important or that we shouldn’t use scientific methods, it just means that science at this stage cannot explain, despite what some people are claiming in this thread, much of the testimonial evidence about OBEs. And if you read a broad range of the literature across the scientific spectrum there are many unanswered questions about the nature of consciousness. It’s not a solved question as some in here might think.
The only evidence and its strong evidence, for our subjective experiences is our collective subjective experiences, each of us has similar experiences albeit with slight variations. The slight variations are an important component of our individual conscious experiences, and they set us apart as individuals.
Most people would consider sufficiently reliable the testimony of 10 or 20 people on most everyday events and would consider the need for science to verify such evidence as ridiculous. Of course, this depends on what people are claiming in their testimony. If 10 or 20 people are claiming they saw Bigfoot I’d be a bit skeptical, you’re going to need a lot more evidence than that, and you’re going to need much more corroboration along with bodies, bones, or other material evidence. The point is that different claims need more or less evidence depending on how much goes against what we normally experience. In the case of OBEs, we have millions of accounts, in a variety of settings, with thousands being corroborated, and the memories are as consistent or stronger than memories of other veridical experiences. These facts suggest that ordinary everyday citizens can, based on a cursory study of the testimony, conclude that OBEs do happen. I say that it’s enough evidence for people to claim that they know OBEs happen. I would further say that if you’ve had the experience, it’s perfectly reasonable to conclude that the experience was veridical, i.e., that you know it’s veridical. Case in point Dr. Eban Alexander’s (neuroscientist) NDE given here:
Proof of Heaven: The Science Behind the Near-Death Experience & Consciousness w/ Dr. Eben Alexander ((https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Msu6_HVRzuI)
To dismiss Dr. Alexander’s testimony, which in itself is very convincing, is to ignore very powerful experiences, that at the very least should be considered and studied with an open mind.
Back a few posts I mentioned David Chalmers not as someone who supports my ideas, but as someone who isn’t as dogmatic about some of these issues as some of you seem to be. He’s surprisingly open-minded even though his conclusions are contrary to many of my conclusions. I enjoyed this recent talk about consciousness at the following link:
What Creates Consciousness? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06-iq-0yJNM&t=2001s
It seems quite clear that people who accept the testimonial evidence that what people see while having an OBE based on what they (doctors, nurses, friends, etc.) know happened is eminently reasonable. Cases, such as the one where a lady after having a heart attack describes what she saw while claiming to be outside her body, viz., a shoe on a ledge outside the hospital. A hospital staff member later verified that the shoe was where the lady said it was and even described the placement of the shoelace. The shoe was located in a spot that wasn’t easy to see by looking out a window. Now it would be easy to dismiss such accounts as anecdotal, but many of these accounts are easy to verify or corroborate. And if these accounts were rare, I would dismiss them too, but they are not rare. Of course, you can always point to a possible explanation that might account for such testimony, but that’s no reason to dismiss the account. Some believe that if you can explain how this could have happened via some other vehicle this somehow diminishes the hundreds of thousands of corroborated accounts. Moreover, because some explanation might explain how a person could see the shoe under such circumstances this doesn’t mean that that is the explanation. Yet people are so eager to dismiss such explanations that they’ll grab onto anything that looks like a possible explanation. The number and variety of such reports are much more compelling than some supposed theory that dismisses the testimony wholesale. The fact that something is possible (a possible reason or cause) is not a reason to believe it’s true. Many of the explanations that supposedly account for these OBEs have very little support when compared to what happened given the medical states of these people.
There is no doubt that neuroscience has made a lot of progress over the recent decades, but none of this progress definitively rebuts OBEs or that consciousness survives death. At best science can establish a correlation between the brain and consciousness but not causation. The hope is that we will eventually be able to establish a physical causal account of consciousness. This is the view of many neuroscientists. But to think that we already can give a definitive account of consciousness as materialistic is just false, it’s just one theory that some scientists and philosophers believe.
Another case is the case of Al Sullivan (Al Sullivan - Near death out of body experience. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-91QXXsyEc&list=PL5yFMykZj0Mz4nDtOMT-0LK9fM4R_7NNK) in which he describes what’s happening in the operating room and the unusual movements of the surgeon. The most reasonable explanation is that he was seeing what was happening from a vantage point outside his body. To dismiss the many thousands (actually millions) of these accounts by saying they’re anecdotal or they’re hallucinations, or it’s a lack of oxygen, or any speculative account besides what’s reported by those who were there is to ignore important data.
One final point, although I put a lot of stock into much of the testimony, there is growing evidence that about 10% (estimate, maybe more) of the testimony on YouTube is created for clicks and is not reliable. After studying NDEs and OBEs for many years I can usually spot those that are not reliable, but this is only the case because of the number of cases I studied before YouTube and other platforms were as ubiquitous as they are now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR0etE_OfMY&t=3355s
(a) How do you know (i.e. corroborate) that you or any other agent is "conscious" if "consciousness" is completely, inaccessibly subjective? :chin:
(b) And if neither you nor any agent can know (i.e. corroborate) that you, herself or any other agent is "conscious," then on what grounds do you conclude, without vicious circularity, that "any kind of explanation" requires "that you must be a conscious agent"?
(c1) So, in principle, it is impossible for a future, non-conscious AGI-system "agent to create or provide any kind of explanation"?
(c2) And if it does "explain" anything, then, by your reasoning, Wayfarer, that would be evidence the AGI-system is a "conscious agent" (affirming the consequent be damned)?
Quoting Sam26
The first paragraph in your post, sir, is riddled with special pleading, appeal to incredulity & appeal to popularity, and also jejune folk psychology. C'mon, how about some philosophizing sans the fallacies & pseudo-science. :roll:
Quoting Pantagruel
Yeah, like your posts ... care to try again?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/918584
Sure.
"Practical Science...is philosophy, which deals with positive truth, indeed, yet contents itself with observations such as come within the range of every man's normal experience, and for the most part, in every waking hour of his life....These observations escape the untrained eye precisely because they permeate our whole lives...."
CS Peirce, "Philosophy and the Sciences"
Indeed, I find Peirce's views to be entirely consonant with my own with respect to the fundamentally limited and approximate character of scientific knowledge, compared with the plenary nature of both reality and our phenomenological experience of it. Peirce is also careful to distinguish between the experimental endeavour, versus just "reading about" something, which I also endorse.
In short, scientific reasoning, if it is legitimate, inherently acknowledges that its results are always open for further correction. And it also acknowledges that there are dimensions and aspects of reality of which it is wholly uninformed. If it doesn't, it is just dogmatism, mere dogmatism.
Mary's room.
Is based on a faulty premise that one can acquire "all the physical facts" that there are about something. Which is implied by my further comments on the inherently compartmentalized and abstract-approximate nature of scientific knowledge in general.
In short, experience overflows our knowledge of it, which is self-evident to me. I know there are some people who think they "know it all" though. They don't.
Whether or not one's explanation of consciousness is question-begging depends on the argument. I would agree that we can't get outside of our particular view, but we are outside the consciousness of others, so in this sense, we can have an objective point of view. That said, we don't have a clue as to what causes consciousness, and I for one have never attempted to answer this question. I know that you are responding to the video, so I'm saying this as a point of clarification.
A materialist's view of consciousness is what is studied from the physicalist standpoint, viz, they're observing an objective view (looking at the brains of other humans or animals, etc) of the brain's activity, so there can be an objective point of view, and this isn't question-begging. I disagree with their conclusions, but it's not question-begging. So, we can be outside the consciousness of others, we aren't confined to our particular view. Also, others can and do look at the objective evidence and make inferences based on that evidence, which, again, is not question-begging.
Quoting 180 Proof
This is just nonsense. One wonders if you have ever studied logic. You keep appealing to logic, but you don't seem to understand the basics of logic. So, you can roll your eyes all you want it does nothing to support your contention. If anything, it does the opposite.
Quoting Pantagruel
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/918584
Straight-forward, relevant questions are beyond you. Gotcha, Pants. Just checking.
Quoting Wayfarer
:sweat: :lol: :rofl:
Neither thinking nor existing (individually or jointly) equals "consciousness"; besides, Descartes' slogan (epitaph) is a non sequitur, sir.
cogito, ergo sum
I'm sorry, what exactly was the question again? All I saw was more of your trademark wit, but no actual philosophical commentary of any kind. I substantiated my position anyway.
.
Quoting 180 Proof
You mean like when you asked me to explain Mario Bunge's metaphysical concept of energy and I provided a link to his text and you told me "never mind" because you were too lazy to read his essay? Ok. Sure.
I'm not really sure why you even bother to engage people who are legitimately trying to offer good commentary only to mock and belittle them. It's not productive. You are definitely the Donald Trump of philosophy. You strike me as the kind of person who would tattoo "Prove me wrong" on his forehead. Maybe that could be your avatar.
:smile:
Your welcome. You have a tendency to make statements without good arguments, and you accuse me of fallacious thinking without understanding the fallacies, and without understanding the epistemological points. Anyone can accuse someone of fallacious thinking without making a good argument to support it. Your tendency is to make pronouncements as though they're true by fiat.
Quoting 180 Proof
To quote my first paragraph again...
Quoting Sam26
To think that these remarks are fallacious is mystifying to me. Most philosophers would probably agree that the first sentence is true, i.e., if it wasn't true much of what we believe through sensory experience would fall apart including many if not all scientific experimentation. Moreover, much of what we know is validated through sensory experience. For example, "How do you know the orange juice is sweet?" - because I tasted it. There are endless examples of sensory experience being a valid way of knowing. So, there is no fallacy here. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of this conclusion.
My second sentence, viz., "This doesn’t mean that we just accept everything people say, it just means that most of what people relay to us is reliable; and since it’s generally reliable along with our sensory experiences it’s a genuine epistemological category along with other ways of acquiring knowledge." Is simply saying that testimonial evidence is a legitimate epistemological category. How this is fallacious is beyond me. It would be like saying in a court of law that all testimonial evidence (strong testimonial evidence) is fallacious. Who would make such a silly statement, and who would claim it's fallacious? Apparently @180 Proof thinks so.
My point in the previous paragraph is simply to point out that there are several ways of using the word know that are epistemological. The following is a list, not exhaustive, but they are the most common uses of know.
1) Inference, argument, proof
2) Sensory experience
3) Testimony
4) Linguistic Training (correct public usage of words)
5) Pure reason or pure logic (X or not X - it's true due to it's logical structure)
All of these are valid ways of knowing, some are stronger than others, but nonetheless they are valid and certainly not fallacious. Where does science fall into the epistemological list? Science uses most of these if not all when putting forth a theory based on experimentation. They often make observations. For example, the 1919 solar eclipse, conducted by Eddington, validated Einstein's general theory of relativity. Sensory observation was a key component of the validation of Einstein's theory. Again, nothing fallacious here.
My final sentence, "This way of knowing is much more pervasive than even science. It doesn’t have the glamour of science or the creative power of science, at least seemingly so, but its power in our lives is undeniable." All this means is that epistemology goes beyond just science. In fact, most of what we know is through the testimony of others. This obviously includes science, but is much more than just science. My argument in this thread depends on testimony, sensory experience, and logic (inductive inference). That said there is also some scientific data that supports the argument, but my argument doesn't rely on science because there is no need to make the inference based on science. Why? Because much of consciousness is beyond the scope of what is known in much of science. So, I would agree with Chalmers in that the hard problem remains, even though we would disagree on how the answers to the hard problem would work themselves out.
My point in this post is to demonstrate that there were no fallacies that I'm aware of in the first paragraph, that seems clear. @180 Proof throws out these these kinds of statements as though he has a valid point, but nothing could be further from the truth. At least some people have put forth arguments.
What does sensory experience have to do with NDEs? Do you think that people 'seeing' things when their brain is in a very abnormal state is a matter of light striking their retinas, nerve impulses propagating up their optic nerves, and their occipital lobes forming images that are a function of the pattern of light striking the retina?
The point is that relying on testimonial evidence is part of our epistemological system, and if you disagree with the testimony you have to give good reasons why the testimony of millions of people in various contexts and with various worldviews is unreliable.
Sensory experience has everything to do with NDEs because people claim that they're seeing, hearing, etc. while being out of their bodies. They claim that their sensory experiences are expanded beyond the body, and in my research, this is corroborated by doctors, nurses, friends, and family members who were there.
Don't you think it makes sense to distinguish between sensory experience that involves the operation of sensory organs that provide us with information about the world around us, and 'seeing things' in a sense that doesn't involve the operation of sensory organs?
Isn't it quite reasonable to be skeptical of such 'seeing things'?
I do make the distinction to argue that consciousness extends beyond the body.
Quoting wonderer1
Whether it's reasonable or not depends on what you think you know. I don't expect people to come to the same conclusion unless they've done more than a cursory study of the evidence. Many who claim to have studied the subject, haven't. I can determine this just by having a short conversation. It can be reasonable based on what you believe you know. Everyone's cash of knowledge is different, so not everyone will agree. Skepticism has its place in philosophy as long as it's not too radical (global).
from 2023 ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/782860
and follow-up to your conspicuously poorly reasoned, often disingenuous dogma ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/797025
Here's a summary of the peer-reviewed article - https://neurosciencenews.com/perception-near-death-20335/
From the cited article:
This is not an OBE. It is something the body experiences as it approaches death. Death is a embodied process not an on/off switch.
Quoting Sam26
:clap: :rofl:
:up: :up:
Some speculate about whether we are living in a simulation. We are in a simulation, but it's not a computer simulation. The simulation is created by consciousness, i.e., consciousness is the source of this reality, and probably all reality except base reality (base reality is a Wittgensteinian hinge,but not something Witt would agree with), which is consciousness itself. It could be that consciousness created something that then creates reality, but we don't know. Consciousness may be able to create reality by its own volition. The implications of this could be that some people that we think are conscious are not conscious, i.e., they are like NPCs in a game. You could refer to them as zombies because they are so real that they can fool us, which is where AI is headed, if not there already.
Mathematics is generated from the base mind (consciousness) and the fact that that mind uses mathematics to create explains why we see mathematical properties throughout our universe. One could argue that Plato was on the correct path.
Those who speculate about a multiverse are probably correct, viz., that other universes exist, whether it's infinite, who knows, probably not.
I believe it's also true that time (not time as we know it, i.e., it may not be linear) is part of base reality, and it's necessary to have consciousness. There is no indication that base reality is outside time. As long as you can experience change in some sense, then time is a necessary feature of the base mind.
I see no evidence that any particular religion has it correct when it comes to the afterlife. My conclusions are that there is no hell, demons, Satan, or that we need to be saved from our sins, etc. In fact, from the perspective of the other side, there isn't even evil or sin as we think of it. Why? Because nothing can harm any of us in terms of our higher self. Something that I believe solves the problem of evil is that we choose to come here knowing full well that we are going to experience some very difficult things. Some of us choose to participate in some very nasty narratives, but none of us will be judged like many religions envision it. Are there choices that are better than others? Absolutely, and love which is at the core of consciousness is what we should strive for.
Do we have free will? Yes, but it may be limited because some things seem to be planned, so we may be free at some level and other things may be determined. Think of it like a river that's pulling you in a certain direction, that direction may be inevitable, but within the confines of the stream, you can still do certain things based on choices. How this plays out is only speculation.
Many more conclusions can be gleaned from NDEs. These are just some of my inferences.
:100: :up:
(a) So if "consciousness ... creates reality", then what "creates" "consciousness"?
(b) And if "consciousness" is not "created", then why assume that "reality" is "created?