Post 7

More on what can and cannot be said according to the Tractatus.

You can think of it this way. First, you have the world, and that includes all that we can talk about sensibly. Next you have what’s beyond the limit of the world, and that’s what cannot be spoken of, the mystical.

Language is a mirror image of the world, and the terms sense, senseless, and nonsense are related to saying, i.e., propositions. Within the boundaries of language (saying) we say things with sense. If we attempt to talk about the limit or the boundaries of language, then we are saying things that are senseless. However, if we attempt to go beyond the boundary, then the result is nonsense. The failure to understand these three categories (sense, senseless, and nonsense) results in misunderstandings of the Tractatus. Early interpretations failed to understand the distinction between senseless (sinnlos) and nonsense (unsinnig), and this can be seen in the first translations of the Tractatus. The distinction between senseless and nonsense was lost on many who first read the Tractatus.

An example of senseless propositions are the propositions of logic, they say nothing (T. 6.11). However, they are not nonsensical for they show “…the formal logical properties of language and the world, i.e., they show us the limit of language and the world (T. 6.12, and K. T. Fann, p. 23).

According to Wittgenstein the propositions of philosophy are not empirical propositions (propositions of natural science). They are attempts to say what cannot be said (for the most part). Wittgenstein believed that most of the propositions of philosophy are not false but nonsensical. They are attempts to say how reality is. Philosophical propositions are similar to asking if the good is more or less identical with the beautiful (T. 4.003).

Wittgenstein also believed that the reasons for why we misunderstand the differences between these propositions (those that make sense, vs those that are senseless, vs those that are nonsense), is that we misunderstand the logic of our language, viz., the logic displayed in the Tractatus.

“Religion, ethics, art, and the realm of the personal are, like metaphysics, concerned with what cannot be said—that which transcends the world (K. T. Fann, p. 23, 24).”

Right, when you get to the end of the book, Wittgenstein admits that it's all wrong — Metaphysician Undercover

This is incorrect. Wittgenstein is NOT admitting that it's all wrong. He says at the beginning of the Tractatus, "On the other hand the truth of the thoughts that are here communicated seems to me unassailable and definitive (T. p. 4)."

"My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them [metaphysical propositions] as nonsensical, when he has used them--as steps--to climb beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.) (T. 6.54)."

Wittgenstein's famous last words have caused more problems for those who read the Tractatus than any other passage. Philosophers from Bertrand Russell to present day philosophers have misunderstood the significance of this passage. After all, Wittgenstein seems to have said a great deal about what cannot be said according to Russell. There have been other accusations that Wittgenstein was illuminating nonsense, according to Pitcher in the Philosophy of Wittgenstein. Ramsey also had some remarks about this passage in the following: "And again we must then take seriously that it is nonsense, and not pretend as Wittgenstein does, that it is important nonsense (F. Ramsey, The Foundations of Mathematics (London, 1931), p. 263)!"

My understanding of this passage is the following: By examining the propositions in the Tractatus, the reader comes to understand that he/she must transcend the propositions (metaphysical propositions) in order to see the world aright. Once this is done, one can then discard the process because Wittgenstein will have accomplished his purpose - that of showing you the way. Once you see enough of what is nonsensical, hopefully, you will have a clear picture of what can be said and what cannot be said - i.e., what propositions have sense. So, the question now becomes, how do the propositions of the Tractatus show us the truth contained therein? One might answer the question this way - just as music and art show us something important, so do the propositions in the Tractatus.

Wittgenstein defines for us which propositions have sense, and which do not. He demonstrates both in the Tractatus. There is a difference between saying and showing. Once we understand the difference between those propositions which have sense, those that refer to states-of-affairs, then we are able to have a clear view of those propositions that are senseless, viz., those that go beyond the limit of language according to the Tractatus.

Post 6

I want to give credit to K. T. Fann (Wittgenstein’s Conception of Philosophy), because I’m using his book as a guide through this, along with, of course, the Tractatus.

The question arises, what are names? Wittgenstein does not mean names like chair, cat, or Socrates. His idea is that a name is a primitive sign, i.e., something that cannot be analyzed any further by means of a definition (T. 3.26). A name is something simple, not complex. For Wittgenstein, this idea comes about by logical necessity.

Wittgenstein never gives us an example of a name, or for that matter, an elementary proposition. He did not think it was his job as a logician to give such examples. However, Wittgenstein was not unaware of the problem. “Our difficulty was that we kept on speaking of simple objects and were unable to mention a single one (Nb. p. 62).”

Remember, Wittgenstein holds to the traditional view at this point in his life, that names refer to objects. “A name means an object. The object is its meaning (‘A’ is the same sign as ‘A’ (T. 3.203).” The configuration of names in an elementary proposition conforms to the configuration of objects in atomic facts. There is a one-to-correspondence to the facts in logical space, which is why propositions are pictures of facts. If we use Wittgenstein’s logic, “A propositional sign is a fact (T. 3.14).” This is why all true propositions (all empirical propositions, propositions of natural science) are equal to particular facts in the world.

“In a proposition a name is the representative of an object.

“Objects can only be named. Signs are their representatives. I can only speak about them: I cannot put them into words. Propositions can only say how things are, not what they are.

“The requirement that simple signs be possible is the requirement that sense be determinate (T. 3.22, 3.221, 3.23).”

Tractatus is best viewed as a poem. It is elegantly written and tells a story, it describes a framework of ideas. But it is not strictly logical nor does it solve any problems, at least none that are not contrived. — A Seagull

Nowhere is there evidence that Wittgenstein thought of the Tractatus as a poem, and he sure didn't wish us to think of it as a kind of poem. And, the idea that the Tractatus is "not strictly logical" belies all the logic in the book.

I'll discuss more of this later.

Post 5

Language

“My whole task consists in explaining the nature of the proposition. That is to say, in giving the nature of all facts, whose picture the proposition is (Nb, p. 39).” Out of this idea springs Wittgenstein’s picture and truth-function theories of language. These theories will answer the questions, how are propositions related to the world, and how are they related to one another.

Wittgenstein’s premise is that if we can talk about the world, then there must be propositions directly connected to the world. He determined that since these propositions (speaking of elementary propositions, which are a subset of ordinary propositions) are connected to the world, then their truth or falsity is determined by the world, and not other propositions. So, the question arises, how are they connected to the world?

“It is obvious that the analysis of propositions must bring us to elementary propositions which consists of names in immediate combination.

“This raises the question how such combination into propositions comes about (T. 4.221).”

Elementary propositions are further broken down into names, and names are the smallest parts of elementary propositions (T. 4.22). So, what you have are propositions broken down into elementary propositions, and further broken down into names. If an elementary proposition is true, then the state-of-affairs obtains or exists, if the elementary proposition is false, then the elementary proposition is false and the state-of-affairs fails to obtain or exist (T. 4.25). The truth or falsity of elementary propositions is dependent on the world, which is made up of facts or states-of-affairs. If you were able to list all true propositions you would have a complete description of the world.

Wittgenstein was convinced that in order for language to work there had to be this one-to-one correlation between language and the world. He is still operating under the old assumption that meaning is associated with the object it denotes. Hence, the idea that names (the smallest constituent part of elementary propositions) is directly connected with objects (the smallest constituent part of atomic facts). In fact, all true propositions are a mirror image of the world. It’s these ideas that Wittgenstein argues against in the Philosophical Investigations.

Thanks Banno.

Because you said that he solved all philosophical problems by analyzing propositions via their truth-functions. Philosophical propositions, pertaining to philosophical problems, and according to him, do not have a truth-function, they are neither true or false, right or wrong, but nonsensical, and so the best one can do with them, is to get rid of them. For example, the critique of pure reason by Kant, is a fine example of a nonsensical book. — Pussycat

Remember I'm talking mainly about the Tractatus, and it's clear if you read what he said about that book, that he believed he solved all the major problems of philosophy. It's in the Tractatus that Wittgenstein puts forward his theory of truth-functions, which I'll be talking more about as we go along.

I don't really see any major disagreement.

Yet, somehow, from this, positivism then says that 'all metaphysics is meaningless' and that therefore the only meaningful statements are those which can be validated with respect to sensible experience. Which is pretty well the exact opposite of Wittgenstein's attitude, in my opinion. — Wayfarer

Ya, the Vienna Circle got it wrong, as many did back then when reading Wittgenstein.

He believed in god, although not the sot that is found hereabouts. When asked if he believed in god, he replied "yes, I do, but the difference between what you believe and what I believe may be infinite". — Banno

Can you reference that Banno? I've read quite a bit, but never came across anything like that.

If you think that why are you in here posting?

:up: It is just a lot of confusion.

I don't think you could say Wittgenstein was religious, maybe in his very early years, but definitely not in his later years. He never ridiculed religion, and in fact, he admired some religious writings. He definitely had a mystical bent to his personality. Some misinterpreted this side of Wittgenstein as religious, but I would say not. The mystical for Wittgenstein would best be expressed between the ideas of saying and showing. He didn't think the mystical could be expressed, but only shown in our actions (e.g. praying and meditating). The mystical goes beyond what can be expressed in language. Wittgenstein believed that language has a boundary, beyond which is that that is senseless (not nonsense, but senseless). I'll talk about this later in my posts.

Post 4

Wittgenstein saw logic as something sublime in the Tractatus. “For there seemed to pertain to logic a peculiar depth—a universal significance. Logic lay, it seemed, at the bottom of all the sciences.—For logical investigations explores the nature of all things. It seeks to see to the bottom of things and is not meant to concern itself whether what actually happens is this or that (PI, 89).” Wittgenstein’s view of logic drove him in a particular direction, viz., the logical connection between the proposition (thought) and the facts (states-of-affairs in the world). For the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus there was an a priori order to the world, and that order would show itself in the connection between the proposition and the world. “The great problem round which everything that I write turns is: Is there an order in the world a priori, and if so what does it consist in (Nb, p.53)?”

In later posts we will see how Wittgenstein uses logic to connect the dots. Connecting the dots was an investigation into the structure of the proposition, and the structure of the world, and again, it’s logic that will reveal that structure.

“This order of investigation [in the Notebooks], however, is roughly the reverse of the order of presentation in the finished text [in the Tractatus]. In the Tractatus Wittgenstein starts with the proposition: ‘The world is all that is the case’ (T. 1.0). ‘The world is the totality of facts, not of things (T. 1.1).’ Though these statements stand at the beginning, they are best regarded as conclusions from what follows. The account of the nature of the world is given first because it anticipates and is required by the theory of language which comes later. The meaning of these metaphysical statements cannot be fully appreciated until his account of the nature of language is understood (Wittgenstein’s Conception of Language, by K. T. Fann, pp. 6, 7).”

Post 3

Logic seems fundamental to Wittgenstein’s thinking, however, how logic fits into his thinking in both his early and later thinking is a bit different, but not always. A difference can be seen, for example, in his thinking about propositions. Propositions are a mirror image of the world in the Tractatus. Propositions have a one-to-one correspondence with the world, viz., with facts. One can think of meaning in the Tractatus as a kind of pointing to, i.e., propositions point to facts in the world, names as part of propositions point to objects which are the smallest parts of facts. This logic is much different from the logic that is seen in his later philosophy (Philosophical Investigations). In the Philosophical Investigations he uses the language-game and use (of words, of propositions) within the social context to show the logic behind language. A vague proposition in the Tractatus is no longer vague when fully analyzed. In the PI, a vague proposition is still vague when analyzed, but it has a kind of logical use, a social use, that incorporates its vagueness into its social function.

The logic in the Tractatus contains an exactness that is disposed of in the PI (at least for the most part). It’s this exactness, I believe, that leads Wittgenstein to believe that he has solved all the philosophical problems (in the T.) in one fell swoop. How has he solved all the philosophical problems? Well, if as Wittgenstein supposes one can analyze all propositions via their truth-functions (more on this later), and these line up with facts in the world, then we can determine what’s true and what’s false based on Wittgenstein’s a priori analysis. This is probably why Russell thought that Wittgenstein was creating a logically perfect language.

Post 2

One of the common misunderstandings of Wittgenstein’s later writings is that he rejected the Tractatus. And while it’s true that Wittgenstein did reject some of his earlier premises (e.g., that there was a one-to-one correspondence between names and simple objects in the world – more on what names and simple objects are later), he did not reject the Tractatus in total. This is not to say that he wasn’t a harsh critic of the Tractatus, because he was. It’s only to say that there is a continuity of thought between Wittgenstein’s early and later thinking. That continuity consists in answering the questions of the nature, job, and method of doing philosophy. One can think of Wittgenstein’s early method of doing philosophy, as the traditional method, and in his later works he introduces a new method of analysis (one could look at his early method as an a priori method, and his later method as a posteriori – although this is not written in stone), in both methods he is still thinking about the logic of language, just in different ways.

According to K. T. Fann the basic assumptions behind the Tractatus has to do with the structure of language being revealed by logic, and that the function of language is to describe the world. Wittgenstein deals with two major questions, according to Fann, “(1) What is the nature of logic? And (2) How is language related to the world? (Wittgenstein’s Conception of Philosophy, p. 5).”

The Tractatus is divided into seven major parts, the seventh part, though, only consists of one statement. The following is a list of these seven parts:

(1) “The world is all that is the case.”
(2) “What is the case—a fact—is the existence of states of affairs.”
(3) “A logical picture of facts is a thought.”
(4) “A thought is a proposition with a sense.”
(5) “A proposition is a truth-function of elementary propositions.
(An elementary proposition is a truth-function of itself.)
(6) In six Wittgenstein gives the general form of a truth-function.
(7) “What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.”


Each of these numbered divisions are numbered to establish a hierarchy. For instance, remark 1.12 is an elaboration on 1.11, which is an elaboration on 1.1, etc., etc. His remarks are put down as if they were unassailable and definitive, with no argument, or very little argument.

Each of these seven divisions can be further broken down into three main topics, logic, language, and the world.

(This isn't going to come fast and furious guys and gals, but I'll try to post at least one post a day.)

I will continue…

I don't want to turn this into a thread on Existentialism, you keep wanting to go there.

Are you saying that the reasons why we are here, are important, yet not understandable? — 3017amen

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.

Sounds very Existential to me, no? :chin: — 3017amen

We must have very different understandings of what it means to be an existentialist.

Before I go on about what other conclusions follow from the evidence, I want to add a few things that are speculative. However, even this speculation has some merit based on the case studies, but the testimonial evidence isn't very strong.

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.

From time-to-time I reiterate some of my earlier points because I know people won't read all that's been posted. What I want to do, is, and this is based on what I believe I know after reading thousands of NDEs, is share what other conclusions we can infer based on the testimonial evidence?

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.

Assuming you are a believer (perhaps you're a Fundy, not sure), was Jesus' resurrection logical, supernatural or something metaphysical and transcendent? — 3017amen

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.

Whether a hallucination is veridical is impossible to determine. — Hanover

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?

Why do you classify a dream as a brain malfunction? — Metaphysician Undercover

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.

Explanation' is something that exists prior to philosophy. — csalisbury

I think your correct, but my idea may be a bit different from what you have in mind. I distinguish causes from reasons, i.e., causes for belief vs reasons for belief. Doing philosophy necessarily involves language, and those beliefs derived from language. For instance, because of reason (or propositions) A, B, and C, I choose to conclude X (inductively), so reason generally involves choices. Whereas a cause for a belief is an explanation without choice, I find myself believing as a result of cause A. For example, I may believe snakes are dangerous because I was bitten by one (X causes Y). On the other hand, I may believe snakes are dangerous based on reasons or evidence (a choice based on reasons/evidence).

Prior to philosophical inferences most (if not all) of our beliefs are causal, i.e., we inherit a certain background that forms a narrative. This narrative when seen from a causally formed perspective (causally formed beliefs) provides the foundation from which all linguistic beliefs (philosophy) are derived. Moreover, it prevents the kind of infinite regress you seem to be talking about.

So, there is a kind of bedrock to reality that we find ourselves in, viz, the world around us, it is the background or reality that allows us to have a philosophy.

What comes to mind is that Christian Existentialists want to disregard reason when it comes to faith. I can't make any sense of this idea. As far as I can see, this leads to nonsense. When you take the leap of faith, you may as well jump into the abyss. Throw out reason and you may as well throw out your brains. I'm using reason in the very broad sense, not just reason as it pertains to logic, but reason that is behind language and our 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).

One of the most common criticisms aimed at near death experiences, is that they are hallucinations. Michael Shermer in a 2013 article in the Scientific American postulates that these experiences can be attributed to hallucinations. The question is then, is this likely the case, not is it possible, but is it likely that these cases are hallucinations? Since we cannot get a definitive answer, that is, an answer in absolute terms, our conclusion should give us an answer as to the likelihood of one conclusion over another. So, the question boils down to whether a hallucination is as good or a better explanation of what is happening than the explanation that these are veridical perceptions. Moreover, the question is not, “Are these real experiences?” Why? Because any experience is real, even a hallucination (i.e., the experience of having a hallucination is real, not the hallucination itself). However, we want to ask if the NDE experience is as real or more real than our everyday experiences, which is why we want to know if the experience is veridical.

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.

I don't see why you need hard evidence to back this up, as it is a rather milquetoast claim. Yes, we have conciousness after we die. It's just that, in such a state, there will 1) be no memory, because the bodily function that before facilitated memory has been destroyed, and as such you cannot compare former states with present states, or rationalize and predict latter states due to advanced prediction functions in the brain being annihilated, and 2) there will be no "you" since the idea of you is itself parallel with some bodily function that has been obliterated. — BraydenS

The reason I need a good argument is because of claims like yours, which is just an opinion.

I don't think Christian Existentialism fairs much better.

It's very difficult to change people's beliefs, which is why I always say that the psychology of belief is much more powerful than any argument. All you have to do is look at political beliefs, religious beliefs, and atheistic beliefs, it rarely happens that these people give up their beliefs. Logic usually has nothing to do with deeply held beliefs. What you usually find is that dogmatism rules the day; and dogmatism is the enemy of truth.

Based on my research into NDEs, religions (mainly thinking about Christianity, but other religions have it wrong too) have it wrong in terms of needing to be saved (salvation), the idea of sin and punishment, hell, Jesus as God, Satan, etc.

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.

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? — 3017amen

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.

NDE's entail someone being outside their body and observing some things going on around them. How can things be seen and heard without eyes and ears, and the neural networks that process the inputs? If this physical equipment really isn't necessary, why are there people who are blind and deaf? — Relativist

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.

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. — 3017amen

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.

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? — 3017amen

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.

This is a continuation of some of what I'm writing in my book entitled "Does Consciousness Survive Death?" A couple of things to remember. First, this is written for the man on the street, so in many ways it's very basic. Second, these pages are not completely edited.

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).

Please note that the moral oughts I find morally relevant are the wishes/desires of people; they are simply recommendations concerning moral thought/speech/behavior and not the other kind of moral ought we see cropping up in moral theories. They are sourced from moral intuitions rather than from full rational analysis of morality and are rough guidlines to serve most moral issues and are not the laws that moral theories are so fond of. — TheMadFool

You didn't address my argument which disputes your premises. All you did was repeat yourself. Your proofs are irrelevant if the premises are false, which I believe is the case.

1. Moral oughts are simply wishes/desires for something better and can't be obligations for freedom is essential to morality

2. Any moral theory that attempts to make the good obligatory and the bad prohibitory, like all moral theories so far, is self-refuting because, as I said, freedom is an essential ingredient for moral responsibility — TheMadFool

I can't make any sense out of either of these premises. I understand what your point is, I just don't believe either (1) or (2) is true. It may be true that some people believe "oughts" are derived from "wishes/desires," but that would make them arbitrary and capricious. What you might consider moral and obligatory might conflict with what I consider moral and obligatory. How would we arrive at any consensus if there weren't good (objective) reasons to suppose that generally love is better than hate, or that murder (as opposed to justifiable killing) is always wrong.

One contention we might be consider is that oughts are derived from that which we value. We value love much more than hate, because we see the outcomes of love over hate. We also value truth-telling generally over lying, because we see the outcome in relationships (business, friends, and family relationships).

Finally, it's correct to assume that freedom is an essential ingredient of morality. However, freedom must be seen in the correct context, that is, it's the power to do otherwise. To say that one should generally keep one's promises doesn't take away one's freedom to not keep one's promises. The freedom to do otherwise is still present, it's just that it's not generally the best course of action - the best moral action. Why? Because we see that in our daily lives keeping promises promotes the good in a variety of ways.

Imagine you are born as adult, fully intelligent, in a completely empty universe. What does it even mean to be intelligent without having no any information about anything? Or do we get born with some kind of basic information with which we could then derive some basic concepts and eventually geometry and math? By the way, what are the minimum necessary concepts to derive the concept of colors? — Zelebg

First, what would it mean to be "fully intelligent" without information of some kind? Intelligence has to be measurable in some way. Second, the universe couldn't be completely empty if you're in it. Third, if you're in the universe, then there is information, namely, you, your hands and feet, and the rest of your body. Your fingers alone could give you some basic information about math. Although one would wonder if you could have a language in such a situation, probably not. If language couldn't exist in such a situation (because of its social nature), then there would be no concepts. However, this doesn't mean that there wouldn't be colors, it just means that there would be no concepts for the colors.

In terms of logic, if you were in the universe, then there would have to be some logic to your existence apart from you understanding that logic.