A new way of thinking about consciousness...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApXndYEpQhs

Is consciousness entirely physical...

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

My point was on the level of existential contingency. All meaning requires something to become sign/symbol, something to become signified/symbolized, and an agent to draw the correlations/associations between them. — creativesoul

This is my point, this idea, that all meaning requires something to be signified is just incorrect. Some things fall into this category but not all things. The term reality is just such an example, so is the word game. By signs I take it you mean the sounds we make when talking, or the marks we make when writing, and the symbol is that which correlates with the sign. But many words have no symbol, other than how we use them in different contexts. For example, what is the symbol that correlates to the sign reality. There are just rules of use (or grammatical rules) determined by different language-games. Language is simply a form of human behavior, thus, what we do with words, and how we use them in practical situations is what's important more often than not. There is no symbol that correlates with the word five. Wittgenstein points this out in his example "buying five red apples," and what's important here is the use of the word five. Thus the idea that there is something that exists, an ontology associated with the word is wrong-headed. Now you know this, so maybe I'm misinterpreting what you mean by sign and symbol.

You also said, "All meaning requires...and agent to draw the correlations/associations between them," but again this is something Wittgenstein would have said in his early philosophy (Tractatus), but it's not something that he would have said in his later philosophy (PI). You seem to be saying what many have believed throughout history, that the meaning of a word is associated with some thing, or some object out there in reality.

Yes, if your view is that there is no afterlife (I'm not talking about religion here - just to be clear) and that this is all there is, then that changes much of what I'm concluding. However, I do believe that I know there is an afterlife, that is, that consciousness survives. Now that may sound arrogant, but I base it on the argument I presented in my thread Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body.

And what is the difference between someone thinking they had an OBE, and someone thinking that they are sitting at a computer desk typing, other than someone thinking the one can't happen. Millions of people claim to have had ultra-real experiences outside their bodies, and some of it can be objectively verified. I don't know how we can dismiss this idea because we think it's wrong.

The argument is a bit more nuanced than your interpretation. I'm not saying you don't feel pain. I'm saying that in terms of a higher level of reality, this reality, and all that goes with it will seem illusory, that is, dreamlike. That ultimately we are not harmed. Thus, the harm that we experience in this reality will not carry over into the reality of the afterlife. There is plenty of testimonial evidence for this from those who have experienced an NDE.

Well, then you need to demonstrate that. I don't see how your argument works here.

If this were the case, then calling it a mind would be incoherent. If there is no reality outside a "mind", then the "mind" would essentially become reality. We use different terms to refer to minds, and reality. To switch the meaning of the two is ridiculous and unnecessary. One simply needs to follow the implications of what they are saying. If "mind" is the only thing to exist, then the "mind" is simply reality and there is no such thing as "mind". — Harry Hindu

There is no meaning without something external to thought/belief. So, if consciousness consists in/of thought/belief, then there is no consciousness without something external to it.

One finger cannot point at itself...

Spatiotemporal distinction requires a plurality. — creativesoul

I'll address both of these together. Basically you're argument is that since we refer to reality and mind as two separate things, then it doesn't follow that they could be one thing, as if the words point to two different objects. Thus, since object X is separate from object Y, then my argument is incoherent or possibly inconsistent. This, to me is just a misunderstanding of how language is used. Use is key (Wittgensteinian use) here. It's true that sometimes words do refer to objects, but words don't exclusively point to objects. There are two many uses of the words mind and reality to give them such precise definitions. If you define these words as you have done, of course you're conclusion is going to be, " If 'mind' is the only thing to exist, then the 'mind' is simply reality and there is no such thing as 'mind'." It's like (Wittgensteinian e.g.) defining all games as board games, and thus someone who calls "playing catch" a game is incorrect because it doesn't fit the definition, or their definition.

This, it seems to me is a perfect example of how many of us create problems that don't exist. Part of the problem here is with the word reality, it's just to vague a term to try to fit it into some precise definition, that is, as something definitely separate from the mind. And since reality is objective, then it has to be separate from the mind. You're definition is keeping you locked into a particular view, as if the word has some definite sense (word = object).

I think both of you have fallen prey to this problem.

I'm thinking of attending the conference on The Science of Consciousness in Tucson, AZ April 2-7. Those of you who are interested and can make it should come.

https://eagle.sbs.arizona.edu/sc/index.php

But if gods forbid you run over a kid in the street because you looked down at your phone when the kid ran out in front of you, no amount of growth and making better decisions will bring that kid back. You can tell yourself whatever you want, but not having a reset button sucks big time for some things. — Marchesk

That would definitely suck, and I can understand why someone would want to change that outcome. My views on this are very unorthodox, because ultimately I don't believe any of us can be harmed in this reality. Yes, we feel deep pain, but I think that's just a function of a body (at least for much of the pain). My view is that the pain we experience here is similar in some ways to the pain we feel in a dream, although it's much more profound than a dream. But it's similar in that once we leave this reality we'll see it for what it is, that is, one of many realities we can experience. So the pain in this reality is a kind of illusion, albeit a very strong and persistent illusion. I know it sounds a bit crazy.

I'm thinking about attending a conference on The Science of Consciousness, which will be held on April 2-7, 2018 in Tucson, AZ. Those of you who are able and interested should come.

https://eagle.sbs.arizona.edu/sc/index.php

Very interesting video by David Bohm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI66ZglzcO0

Getting back to the title of the post, what if everything is simply a construct of consciousness, then everything we're experiencing could be within that consciousness or mind. There would be no reality outside that mind, every reality that's experienced could be a kind of holographic reality that we simply engage with from within a mind. There are some physicists who think that at the bottom of everything is simply consciousness, that reality is part of that consciousness. Consciousness may be the unifying theory of everything. In fact, the very particles themselves may be part of that consciousness. Of course much more needs to be done in terms of science, but it's very interesting.

https://tmhome.com/news-events/unified-field-of-consciousness-onemany/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mst3fOl5vH0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI66ZglzcO0

Once I know that I'm in a VR, then it would only be useful to refer to the things inside the VR when speaking to others inside the VR that AREN'T aware they are in a VR. In other words, I'd have to speak on their level of understanding, which would be different than mine. Ignorance doesn't make one's objective language actually true. We can make objective statements about reality all the time that simply aren't true. Just look at the rest of this forum. Every post is filled with objective claims about reality - most of which, if not all, aren't true. — Harry Hindu

I agree with much of this Harry, and I agree that people make claims about reality thinking their claims are objective when they're not. I think what's important is understanding that objectivity is contingent on many things, it's especially contingent/dependent on what we're experiencing within a given reality. What about the one who creates the VR, isn't that program objective for him/her? It has an existence, it's just a different kind of reality, a different metaphysical domain, so to speak.

Here's my take on this Xander. Unless your going to bring the knowledge you have now back with you when you start over, what makes you think you would do anything different? And if you did start over with the knowledge you have now, it wouldn't be the same you. It would be like cheating. In other words, it wouldn't be the "you" that originally made decision X. However, as in the movie with Cruise, even if you have more information when you go back that doesn't mean you'll necessarily make the best choice. Cruise had to keep doing it over and over until he knew many of the possible outcomes, because each outcome had it own set of problems.

Maybe it's not about making or doing everything the right way, whatever that might be, maybe it's about how we deal with these problems as we grow and gain more knowledge. There are problems however, that cause pain to others and even to ourselves that we wish we could change, and I can see how we might want to go back and change these things.

Of course my metaphysical outlook has changed drastically in the last 7-8 years, because I'm no longer a religious person. It's not that I don't think there isn't a reality beyond death, it's that I think many of our ideas of this reality are tainted by a certain religious dogma. That said, it's not just that there is religious dogma, there is also a scientific dogma that can be just as limiting, but in different ways. Actually my beliefs have freed me to think beyond what is normally thought, in terms of reality. It's a different way of thinking with it's own set of problems, dogmas, and egotistical points of view.

This doesn't seem to be much different than my explanation in making category errors when referring to something in the VR as if it weren't a representation of a computer program. You seem to be saying that it is true from a VR person's perspective that there really is an enemy robot chasing them, but isn't that because they don't have access to more knowledge - that they are in a VR program? So, it would be more accurate to say that the computer user has more knowledge than the VR person, which means that they have access to the truth, while the VR person doesn't. — Harry Hindu

It's true that the person in the VR program has less knowledge than the computer user, but it's much more I believe. For example, let's suppose that you know you're in a VR, but you don't have access to the same reality the user has, you are still going to refer to things in your VR as real, and rightly so since you're living there. You can still refer to things in the VR as objective even if you know it's not as real as the reality the user has access to. So things are objective within a reality, much of this is relative and dependent on how we describe, or use the term reality. Reality is a vague term, and is subject to a wide variety of uses. I don't think there is going to be some definition that will solve this problem. I also don't really think it's a category error, although I can see how someone might think so. A lot of this also depends on one's ontological or metaphysical outlook.

(Y)

If the answer is both yes and no, then you have problem called inconsistency.

Being inside the VR or outside of it doesn't matter. The VR exists objectively for everyone. For the person in the VR, their tree would refer to an objective aspect of the world - the computer code of the VR. To say that one is subjective and one isn't is really just talking about making category errors, where those that are making "subjective" statements are making category errors, while those making objective statements aren't. — Harry Hindu

No, it's not inconsistent, it's similar to a contingent truth, that is, it can be true in one setting and false in another depending on the state-of-affairs. I didn't say it was subjective, I said it was relative, there is a big difference.

Yes, but my point is that we might assume, for example, if we lived in a virtual world that it had an objective nature, but that's only true within that reality. If you were looking at that reality from outside, like outside a virtual reality, then you might not say it's objective. It just depends on where you're standing in relation to that reality. So in a sense the answer to the question is both yes and no. So what we call objective is relative.

Good. If you could not imagine a greater 'you' why keep living at all? To become worse over time? The key here is defining what makes you happy. Once you recognize what makes you happy, it's just a matter of doing it. So if being around others and building your community makes you happy, you do it. If refining your ideas into a book, maybe no one will read, makes you happy, then you do it. If I could not imagine a greater happiness than what I've already experienced; why keep living at all? I'd say the only reason we keep living is specifically because we still feel we might end up with a greater sense of purpose, happiness, whatnot than we have so far felt. — Frank Barroso

It's feels good to be happy, and it would be nice if we could always do the things that make us happy, but in my humble opinion life is not about being happy. It's about doing the right thing, even if it costs us our happiness. So life is about things like love, which sometimes requires sacrifice, and in turn doesn't necessarily make us happy. The things that are really important in life are much higher on the scale of values than happiness.

Nothing against you Frank, I just had to rant against happiness.

If there isn't an external world, then all of our words don't refer to, or mean, anything. We would never be talking about things that exist independent of the words themselves, or states-of-affairs that exist independent of our experience of them. Language is built on the premise of object permanence. — Harry Hindu

This isn't necessarily the case. It's possible that a very powerful mind/s could create a reality that's a virtual simulation, and while you're experiencing that reality with others you might refer to things in that reality as objective. That is to say, language would dictate how you would refer to that reality, because you have no other reality to compare it to.

Language isn't built on objective permanence, language generally takes hold as people agree on the use of words. Although a reality does have to have some permanence, whether it's a simulation or not.

That's the point, they're called NEAR DEATH experiences - not death experiences.

Here's a really interesting video between Sam Harris and David Chalmers on the hard problem of consciousness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bmHL1sbntw

David Wallace giving a contrary view.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQbjP5XjEnA

I do believe people can experience an OBE while in a deeply meditative state. And my inclination is to think that OBEs can occur without experiencing trauma as most do when having an NDE. If this is what you mean by lucid dreaming, then we're just using different words to describe the same thing. When I refer to lucid dreaming I'm referring to what most people call lucid dreaming, that is, that low quality dream state while somewhat awake.

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.

Sounds more like an empty post. We're talking about near death experiences, not death experiences - obviously there's a difference. Moreover, there are things we can learn about death, since people are reporting what they see when they leave the body.

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.

I don't mind disagreement, don't get me wrong, I'm just trying to understand your position.

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.

Your argument is mostly speculation, and based on what's possible. Lots of things are possible, but not very probable. You don't give any evidence.

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 don't know of any metaphysical support for past lives.

I thought some of you might be interested in Sir Roger Penrose's talk on "The Quantum Nature of Consciousness." It's just a short discussion. However, if you're interested in some of his longer discussions, Youtube has those videos too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WXTX0IUaOg

I don't think the evidence for past lives is credible based on the testimonials of memories alone. I do think there is support though based on NDE testimonials, and if one couples those reports with other reports, such as those who have had DMT experiences, then it seems to me that there is evidence to support the idea.

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. — sime

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.

The probability is based on the criteria of what makes testimonial evidence strong, which I gave on page one. So based on numbers of reports, variety of reports, consistency of reports, first-hand accounts, and objective corroboration, one can infer that (as in an inductive argument) there is strong support for the conclusion.

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.

Post #4

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.

You guys are taking the thread in a different direction. I was looking at the evidence based on NDEs, and where the evidence leads.

Post #3

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.

Post #2

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.

The following numbered posts are going to be my views of reality based on NDE testimonials, that is, where I believe the evidence leads.
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.

This is an interesting NDE of someone who has been blind since birth. Listen to how she describes her NDE.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKyQJDZuMHE

Second NDE of blind person.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA8L9W7KiOo

But that belief itself is "groundless" or aesthetically grounded. — t0m

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.

Ya, and I was 28 in 1978, so I'm getting up there.

Wow, philosophy 101, I took that class in 1978. lol It was Plato that got me interested in philosophy.