Agnosticism is saying that the person doesn't know if the concept God has an instance in reality. They're not sure if there is a fact of the matter, or state-of-affairs that attaches itself to the concept. So, there is a belief about the concept, but a lack of belief as to whether the concept has an instance in reality, to say it in a slightly different way.

mean since scientific observations are publicly available whereas consciousness is not publicly observable — Janus

It seems to me that if consciousness wasn't publicly observable, then what in the world would it mean to say that someone is conscious? You seem to imply that consciousness is only that which I alone can access. It would have to be at the very least both private and public. The public part being that which allows us to access the concepts and ideas associated with what's happening to us privately. Without the public part there would be no talking about consciousness, period. Even the idea of what it's like to experience the color red, or to experience the bitterness of dark chocolate, is both private and public. It's the public part of consciousness that allows us to say that rocks aren't conscious.

If you mean there is no scientific avenue of investigation into these private experiences, that too, seems false to me. We investigate these private experiences all the time in science. To investigate the person (their private experiences) is to investigate consciousness. We can easily collect data on such an investigation, and have collected data.

There is no invisible thing associated with consciousness. There is no soul, as some envision, that is the essence of consciousness. There are only the outward signs associated with being you or me, and that is what is meant by consciousness, as I see it. Even in my investigation into NDEs, it's still the same thing, i.e., you can ask the same questions, and the answers would still be the same.

I came back because I did my video over for a third time. Third time is a charm they say. So, since I'm here I'll give a short response to your reply.

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'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. — Isaac

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.

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. — 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.

My own study isn't dependent on what a group of scientists say about this or that, although obviously it helps. My study is more of an epistemological study, and what we can know apart from any scientific investigation. It seems clear that we can know many things apart from what science tells us, just using basic logic, testimonial evidence, and common sensory experience. The notion that we always have to appeal to some scientific investigation to tell us what's true or false, is false on its face. Furthermore, it diminishes other ways of acquiring knowledge.

True, but if you want the complete article you're going to have to pay a minimum of $15. It's at the following link:

https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/nyas.14740

"Researchers publish consensus statement for the study of recalled experiences surrounding death"

"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

Come on, that's not an ad hominem. Fallacies are related to arguments, if the argument uses a personal attack, say, in one of its premises, then it's an ad hominem. If someone says you're an idiot, as an opinion, it's not a fallacy, it's certainly not conducive to a good response, and doesn't help with trying to get to the truth, but it's not fallacious, again, unless it's part of an argument.

That's correct, when there is no measurable brain activity, the brain is not capable of forming new memories. So, the conclusion is that either the memory was formed after their revival, or there is something else going on, viz., they're actually having an out-of-body experience. Now the question is, why would we conclude that they're actually having an OBE? Simple, if the time of the supposed NDE memories are correlated with particular conversations and actions of those around the body when the brain is showing no activity, then the memories are not formed after the patients revival. We don't form memories of things we haven't experienced. If there was a conversation X, that happened at T1, and T1 is exactly when the brain was not functioning, then there is no good reason that we know of to suppose that the memory happened after the revival, how does that even make sense? This is why NDEs or OBEs are so puzzling. Even if we speculate that maybe the brain is having activity that we aren't able to measure, it's just a guess, there's no reason to believe this. Unless there is some other reasonable explanation of how this could happen, it would seem to follow that the memories were formed while in the OBE state and when there was no brain activity. There are just too many confirmed reports of this happening to write them off as something other than what they are, viz., OBEs.

This is the 3rd recording of this video in an attempt to make it better. I recorded it on 1/11/2023, so the first two were obviously deleted.

I deleted the video because I didn't think it was good enough. I will add the video again when I redo it.

I'm not going to say much more about these experiences. I've already written quite a bit in my thread.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1980/evidence-of-consciousness-surviving-the-body

Is my question unreasonable? The spirit wouldn't leave the body unless it was in rough shape? I truly want to believe in conscious existence after physical death. But there seems to be a lot of space between those that believe NDEs are evidence of that, and what I perceive as the majority of those in this forum. — TiredThinker

Your question isn't unreasonable. There are many reasons/causes that contribute to why only 10% (estimate) are reporting NDEs. Some people are afraid to report them, they're worried that people won't take them seriously. Many times there are things that interfere with the memories, such as the use of drugs, etc, You shouldn't, in my estimation, just throw out the reports of the 10% because others aren't remembering or even having an NDE. You should look at the 10%, which is a huge number by the way, and listen to what their reporting. Just as in everyday testimonial evidence there is going to be a certain amount of inconsistency. However, there is also going to be a certain amount of consistency if it's reflecting a real experience, i.e., veridical. The OBE happens almost without exception, feeling of peace and love, feeling like their finally home, seeing deceased loved ones, going through a tunnel or some passage way, seeing their body from the third-person perspective, etc, etc. This is true from culture to culture. There are inconsistencies also, just as with normal experiences. Every experience we have is unique to an individual, so there are always going to be inconsistencies with testimonial evidence, which is why testimonial evidence in many cases is very weak. However, as I've said many times before in other threads it can also be very strong under the right conditions. My argument in my thread explains this.

When people experience an NDE it isn't necessarily because they are near death or in rough shape, although many are. There are many NDEs that happen apart from being near death, although the majority have while near death.

It's difficult to work through these beliefs, because, especially in forums like this, the majority of people have a wide range of views, and are on average very intelligent. All I can tell you is don't let others, including me, influence what you believe, do your own work, and learn to think for yourself. Also, keep in mind that much of what we believe has nothing to do with good reasoning, it tends to be more psychological, so keep that in mind.

Good Luck.

I tried to answer more questions, but there appears to be something wrong with the site.

It looks like the problem was my browser.

But testimonial evidence on this topic is old hat, and is completely inconclusive since the body of testimony RE NDEs is nevertheless consistent with the hallucination hypothesis- cognitive mechanisms like false memory being well-established at this point. — busycuttingcrap

First, this comment is not true, and anyone with just a little understanding of hallucinations would know it. I've addressed this before, many times, NDEs are not consistent with hallucinations. There have been studies from Harvard, Baylor, UC Riverside, UVA, Virginia Commonwealth University, the Medical College of Wisconsin, the University Hospital Southampton, and King’s College in London that confirm this. Hallucinations are person relative, which is one of the main characteristics that separate them from veridical experiences. Hallucinations are disjointed with generally no consistent narrative between patients, and the memories when compared with NDEs don't have the same clarity of recall (there have been many memory studies). People who recall their NDE, recall it with a clarity that is at least as clear, probably more so, than veridical experiences; and the memories tend to be just as clear many years later. Many NDErs also claim that the NDE is more real than their everyday experiences, this is not the case with hallucinations, dreams, delusions, etc. Moreover, if you look at what causes hallucinations, brain injury, lack of oxygen to the brain, certain illnesses, drugs, etc., this is not what you generally find in NDEs. NDEs also happen across a wide spectrum of experiences, not just near death. Patients who have had a hallucination tend to be much more agitated and belligerent, which is definitely not generally the case with NDEs. NDEs, in the majority of cases are positive, there are a small percentage that are negative, but generally speaking they tend to be positive. So, again, it is not well-established that NDEs are hallucinations or false memories.

And I'm not sure why you're hyper-focused on the word "irreversible" here since that was beside the point. One thing we would expect to see, if NDEs were veridical and evidence of consciousness absent a physical body and/or life after the physical death of the body, is the occasional ability to perceive some piece of information or evidence, during the event, that can be verified as veridical and would not be available otherwise. And this doesn't happen (there have been studies that did precisely this, and returned a negative result, including studies sympathetic to NDEs such as the AWARE study). But then, if you truly are familiar with the data, and not just the data you think confirms your pre-existing position, you already knew that. Right? — busycuttingcrap

I’m not hyper-focused on “irreversible.” It was in response to 180 Proof that this came up.

The statement that people are not reporting verifiable information while in their NDE is blatantly false. Good grief, if you have read even a small portion of the many NDE accounts, and the thousands that have be corroborated, you would not be making such a silly statement.

This last part is laughable, you clearly have not read the Aware study, and if you had, then you’re being disingenuous. The study was inconclusive. Although there was one patient who did give accurate information. My view is that this study doesn’t give strong evidence for or against NDEs. If you’re going to claim that I’m not familiar with the data, you better get your information correct. I’ve been studying NDEs, not just reading a paper here and there, for well over 17 years. I know the data. If you’re going to challenge me on the data, then you better get your facts straight.

By the way, welcome back.

Wow, you must have studied NDEs for what, 5 minutes. This is just false, and blatantly so. If it's true that NDEs are veridical (as per my thread- https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1980/evidence-of-consciousness-surviving-the-body), then they give hope to millions of people who have lost loved ones. NDEs also give hope to those who fear death, who are dying, and who are suffering. The one thing that comes across in most NDEs is the unconditional love that supports us, and how connected we are to one another and the universe at large. This isn't the unconditional love that Christians believe in, where Gods says he loves you, but if you don't believe in me you're going to hell. It's much richer than any religious dogma, and points to where our home truly is. Moreover, it sheds light on consciousness, and the different levels of consciousness. It also sheds light on why so many people believe there is much more to our lives than this short human experience. These are just some of the benefits of learning or studying about NDEs, there is much much more.

Still no argument, only statements that reflect your feelings and attitudes. Poor substitution for logic. You're blinded by your metaphysical bias and dogmatism, but I digress.

Come back from irreverdible brain death with corroborable memories of an "afterlife". That would be proof. Anecdotes – eyewitness testimonies – are notoriously unreliable (as inmates in asylums attest to daily). "NDE" isn't death, it's a cognitive illusion (e.g. an altered / suboptimal brain-state) like e.g. the placebo effect. — 180 Proof

Well, by definition you can't come back from irreversible brain death. So, you're asking the impossible. Mostly we use anecdote to refer to stories that tend to be unreliable or just hearsay. These stories are not anecdotes in that sense. I hear people use this as an argument, but it shows their bias because these stories, the one's that have been corroborated, are by definition not anecdotal. They're firsthand accounts, which have been verified by other witnesses of the events. In other words, the NDErs are describing events around their bodies from a third person perspective, like any other observer. In many cases there's no brain activity, no heart beat, no breathing, eyes are dilated and fixed, etc; and yet, they're able to give an accurate account (including conversations and other descriptions of the people who are there) of what's happening. This is what good testimonial amounts to. Also, if you have hundreds of thousands of accounts (more like 10's of millions) like this, it's not weak testimonial evidence, it's very strong testimonial evidence.

I agree, testimonial evidence is notoriously weak, but it can be very strong, and this can be demonstrated using the criteria for a good inductive argument, using simple logic.

Your pronouncement that "NDEs...[are] a cognitive illusion" is just an opinion that's not supported by the data, and it's not an argument. You're not giving a cogent or sound argument, period, you're speculating; and speculating is fine, I enjoy doing it, but it's not what I would expect from someone putting forth a reasoned argument against my position. The idea that it's some placebo effect is just silly.

Yes, this exactly. If mystical/religious/dualist/etc interpretation of these experiences were correct, this is something we would expect to see. The fact that we do not see it happen is itself probably the single strongest argument/evidence that these experiences are not veridical. — busycuttingcrap

You disregard the testimonial evidence given in my argument (in my thread), and ask for evidence, "coming back from irreversible brain death" as proof, as per 180 Proof. You expect me or anyone who has studied the data to take this seriously. I'm always complaining to Christians about their arguments, but these statements are worse.

If 100 people are clinically dead for a time and only 10% have the experience how doesn't that cast doubt onto the legitimacy of it representing consciousness outside of the body? Why can't it just as easily be imagined? — TiredThinker

The question is, how does it cast doubt on the legitimacy of those who had the experience (by the way, Cuthbert also commented on this reasoning)? You're assuming that in a certain context, if only 10 out of a 100 have a certain experience, then the experience isn't valid. How does that logically follow? You have to look at the experience itself to see if there are reasons to suppose the NDE experience is veridical. There have been too many instances of testimonial corroboration, viz., where the description of events while claiming to be outside their body is verified with those doctors and nurses who were there. I don't see how you can dismiss that, other than they're describing real events.

"some consciousness source"? What does this mean? Are you suggesting we don't have consciousness of our own? A loan of some kind? — TiredThinker

There seems to be a source of all consciousness, and that we are connected to that source. It doesn't mean that your consciousness is not your own. There are clearly unanswered questions, but just because you can't answer all the questions, it doesn't follow that consciousness is necessitated by the brain. The testimonial evidence favors, by a long shot, that consciousness survives death. You have to look at the evidence as a whole, like putting a puzzle together with some missing pieces. You can still see with the pieces missing a clear picture forming.

What does the placebo effect got to do with seeing and hearing real events that have the corroboration of those who were there. Maybe the experience of you sitting at your computer typing is the result of the placebo effect, but I seriously doubt it.

Dualism might not be the best argument. One can argue in favor of consciousness being separate from the body/brain, as mine does, without using dualistic arguments. Although, it sure seems to favor some form of dualism. It may be that everything falls under the rubric of consciousness, i.e., that consciousness is the source of all reality. This is a possible answer, one that I lean towards.

There aren't' any good arguments against NDEs. I've read almost all of the so-called counter-arguments. There are arguments against specific NDEs, because there are people making some of these stories up and cashing in on books. All of the arguments against, involving hallucinations, lack of oxygen to the brain, dreams, the brain shutting down, drugs, etc., don't have much of a leg to stand on, especially if you read the medical data on these specific counter-arguments and compare them with NDEs.

Second, because testimonial evidence is varied, or even contradictory, that's not necessarily a good reason to dismiss the testimonial evidence. For example, if you have 20 people who witness a car accident, and you have, say, 10% of the witnesses contradicting the other 90%, that doesn't mean you can't use the evidence, or that the overall evidence isn't good. This happens all the time with testimonial evidence. I can come to a reasonable conclusion (inductively) based on the 90%. You have to know how to sort through the testimonial evidence and make correct inferences. This is what is done in science, the FBI and in our courts all the time, sometimes we get it wrong, depending on the strength of the testimony or data, but generally we get it right. All inductive conclusions have a probability of being incorrect. However, if the evidence is strong, you can make a claim to knowledge, the inductive conclusion doesn't have to necessarily follow, it just has to be highly probable.

Almost all of our beliefs are arrived at through testimony, viz., books, lectures, videos, etc. You can't doubt most of it without collapsing one of our main sources of knowledge. The point here is that you have to know how to evaluate testimonial evidence. Testimonial evidence is one of the weakest ways to gain knowledge, however, under the right conditions it can be very very strong. This is why I explain in my thread what makes this testimonial evidence so strong. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it's irrational to reject it if you fully understand all the testimonials, the medical data (at least some of it), and much of the research data associated with the experiences. Most people who respond to these arguments (especially in these forums) don't understand the data, and don't know how to evaluate the testimonials.

Much of what we believe is influenced, to a large degree, by culture, family, friends, religion, etc., which is why there are different interpretations of what people see in these NDEs. For example, if you're a Christian, you'll have a tendency to interpret certain beings as Jesus, while in other cultures they may interpret the being as some other religious figure. This is why it's important to look at these testimonials across a wide swath of cultures. That said, there are certain aspects of the NDE that occur in all cultures and in all or almost all accounts of these NDEs. One of the main things that occurs in these NDEs, is the OBE, along with several other experiences that make them very similar. There is statistical data that supports this, so it's not just something pulled out of the air. By the way, this similarity of experience demonstrates why most who study this material don't believe people are having hallucinations, or some other medical problem.

I want to add that I don't think these NDEs support a particular religious view of the afterlife. In fact, if anything, it contradicts many or some of the religious dogma. My own view based on considerable evidence, is that we're having a human experience, but that we're connected to some consciousness source, be it God (but this God, if he/she exists, is probably very different from, for e.g., the Christian God), or some other kind of intellectual power. This isn't a death experience, it's a near-death experience, and these NDEs point to something much more to our lives than we are aware in our very limited understanding.

Finally, there are many unanswered questions, but that should spur us on to pursue the the answers, not to simply throw out the evidence because it doesn't fit a narrative.

There's much more written in my thread - https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1980/evidence-of-consciousness-surviving-the-body

Try instead "there are many ways we use words that have no actual or real existence or referent..." — Banno

Don't you think it's rather obvious that if we're talking about concepts, in this context, we're talking about how we use them, which is why I gave examples of different uses (fiction, mythology, etc.). Concepts have an ontology within various language-games. So, there is no need to replace concept with the use of the word.

The concept democracy exists, which is why we are able to use it. Moreover, I surely wouldn't say that the number two has a referent, but it does have a use, and within that use it has an existence of sorts. It exists as an abstraction.

We can say that what gives a concept life, is the way we use it in a language. So, again, the concept has existence within our various forms of life, or language-games.

True nonsense that is unassailable and definitive. Of course you can’t argue nonsense. (This is essentially Karl Popper’s argument against the Tractatus) — Richard B

That's not what Wittgenstein is saying, viz., that "True nonsense is unassailable and definitive." These are the kinds of misunderstandings that happen when people read the Tractatus. Again, he's saying that the logic behind his thinking about metaphysical propositions (as per the limits of language), and the conclusions that follow from his picture theory and truth-function theory, are unassailable and definitive.

So, by raising the questions about the essence of language, the essence of the world, and the limits of language, one comes to see through the journey of the Tractatus, that the questions and answers are nonsensical. This, he believes is unassailable and definitive.

I don't believe Popper ever really understood Wittgenstein, and neither did Russell.

Again, it's about context. What's veridical is not a fiction, or myth, or a hallucination, etc. Although, within a fictional story one could talk about what's veridical in relation to the story. However, it's still a fiction.

So they do have a referent or they don't? — bongo fury

It depends on the context. If you're talking about a fictional character, the referent is the character in the story. If you're referring to what's veridical, then they have no referent.

Oh, no, I mean the way we use the concept is real, but not all concepts have referents in reality, i.e., they're not veridical. The only referent they might have is a fictional one, their ontology is real, but only as a fiction or myth.

What? What's the brain shiver?

There is an afterlife, i.e., that we as conscious beings do survive the death of the body. For me, it's beyond dispute, as I argued in the following thread.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1980/evidence-of-consciousness-surviving-the-body

So, his approach to meaning and the underlying structure of language is shown to be meaningless and nonsense by his approach. — Richard B

My understanding is the following:

He clearly says in the preface, "[T]he aim of the book is to draw a limit to thought, or rather-- not to thought, but to the expression of thoughts..." Also, "If this work has any value, it consists in two things: the first is that thoughts are expressed in it, and on this score the better the thoughts are expressed--the more the nail has been hit on the head--the greater will be its value." And finally, "...the truth [my emphasis] of the thoughts that are here communicated seems to me unassailable and definitive. I believe myself to have found, on all essential points, the final solution of the problems."

It seems to me that Wittgenstein wanted us to view the Tractatus as any other work of philosophy (as we proceed through it), viz., that the propositions in it are "true." As one climbs the ladder with Wittgenstein, one comes to realize that the propositions in the Tractatus, as traditionally thought of, are nonsense. Why? Because in drawing a limit to thought (what can be said) we come to see that the propositions of the Tractatus have gone beyond what can be said. It's in this way, that the propositions are nonsense, they have gone into the metaphysical. So, as we take the journey with him (which is the process of showing) we come to realize that the propositions, as traditionally thought, are not true, but nonsense, because there are no facts that correspond to them. He believed, of course, that in taking this journey, we then see the world aright.

Much of philosophy, he believed, transcends the limit of language, and is therefore meaningless in much the same way that the propositions of the Tractatus are meaningless. Even in his later philosophy he believed that such a limit existed, and that much of philosophy, was an attempt to say what cannot be said. Although, his later philosophy is broader in scope, in terms of how the logic of language determines the limits of what can be said.

There are many concepts, especially in fiction and mythology, that have no actual or real existence or referent. The only thing that's real is the concept, or conceptual idea.

I believe that logic was too broad. It seems as though Wittgenstein set up the cart correctly, with logical analysis behind ordinary language — Shawn

.

Are you saying that Wittgenstein's restrictive logic in the Tractatus is correct, viz., that the meaning of a word is the object that it denotes. It's this restrictive logic that Wittgenstein rejects in his later philosophy. Moreover, it's clearly incorrect. There's not much dispute about it. The logic in the Tractatus breaks down the proposition into it's smallest part (names), which has a one-to-one correspondence to the smallest part of a fact (objects). It's a picture theory or truth-function theory of meaning.

There are some important ideas in the Tractatus, but Wittgenstein rejects the a priori logic behind the Tractatus in favor of a more broad view of logic. His logic in the T. is much too restrictive in terms of meaning. I'm not familiar with Bergmann. My interpretation of W. mostly came from studying and reading W., that's not to say that we can't learn from others who have studied W., we definitely can, but read broadly.

What kind? What methodology ought one adopt if not an ordinary language one? That's all we can default towards. So, methodological nominalism prevails, yes? — Shawn

If you're asking what kind of confusions, they're everywhere. Pick a subject, and linguistic confusions abound. pointed some out in his quote of Wittgenstein, and the PI is full of examples. Almost any discussion on the nature of truth, knowledge, belief, reality, consciousness, metaphysics, religion, atheism, etc., contain linguistic errors.

I'm not against Wittgenstein's ordinary language methodology, i.e., if one is understanding what he means by ordinary language. It surely doesn't mean that the man on the street is necessarily speaking more precisely, although in many cases he may be. The logic of conceptual use, as seen in Wittgenstein's later philosophy is reflected in our forms of life, which tends to bring out the correct grammar (or logic) behind the use of our words/concepts. Understanding ordinary use in this sense can shed light on the nature of the correct use of words, or again, the logic that follows the history of ordinary usage. This is not as easy as one, two, three, it's extremely complex, and confusing. Note how in many threads/discussions many of the discussion break down over the use of words Even people who think they understand Wittgenstein can't sort out some of the issues (I include myself in this group). This is one of the reasons we shouldn't be so dogmatic about our particular philosophical ideas or theories. We are easily misled down this or that road.

Because of my metaphysics I tend towards some of Plato's ideas, but this is a bit off topic. And, because of my metaphysics I believe Wittgenstein was wrong about the limits of language, not that there aren't limits, but where the limit is to be drawn. If, as I suspect, our consciousness extends into the metaphysical, then language use does also.

I like this quote from Wittgenstein in Culture and Value, “People say again and again that philosophy doesn’t really progress, that we are still occupied with the same philosophical problems as were the Greeks. But the people who say this don’t understand why it has to be so. It is because our language has remained the same and keeps seducing us into asking the same questions. As long as there continues to be a verb ‘to be’ that looks as if it functions in the same way as ‘to eat’ and ‘to drink’, and as long as we still have the adjectives ‘identical’, ‘true’, ‘false’, ‘possible’, as long as we continue to talk of river of time, of an expanse of space, etc. etc., people will keep stumbling over the same puzzling difficulties and find themselves staring at something which no explanation seems capable of clearing up. And what’s more, this satisfies a longing for the transcendent, because in so far as people think they can see the “ limits of human understanding”, they believe of course that they can see beyond these.” — Richard B

This is a great quote, as it points to a fundamental problem with language, i.e., that it can twist our conceptual frame of reference into tight little knots of confusion. This is true even if you think you understand Wittgenstein. The best we can hope for is to try to understand Wittgenstein's linguistic methods to untie these knots, but unfortunately, even those who have studied Wittgenstein for years can't seem to untie some of the knots. It could be argued that even Wittgenstein was confused on some level, viz., on the reach of language. I'm speaking here of the metaphysical reach of language.

So, I agree with the above quote, until the last sentence or two. My disagreement, though, takes nothing away from his genius. It is still my opinion that if you don't at least try to understand Wittgenstein's methods, that you are doing a disservice to your own understanding of the concepts used in our philosophical discourse. The point being, you'll be more confused than you should be. Most of the discussions in forums like this reflect these linguistic confusions. In fact, most of the threads are filled with linguistic confusions, you can see it in the type of questions being asked.

Gettier doesn't claim that his characters know. On the contrary, he claims that they have a justified true belief and not knowledge. That's the point. — Ludwig V

I understand that Gettier is saying that they don't know, but those who are having the experience of seeing X, claim they know. Gettier is saying, they don't know, based on his examination of JTB. Again, Gettier is confused. You can't infer from someone's claim that they know, that they do indeed know, and that's what Gettier is doing. He's saying, see, their using JTB and it failed to give knowledge. He's conflating one's claim to knowledge with actually having knowledge. There's nothing difficult about this. That's my point.

What does Wittgenstein mean by grammar? Wittgenstein's basic definition of grammar is, the rules that govern the use or the meaning of words (PG 133). The rules are arbitrary and are not "accountable to any reality." Wittgenstein maintains that the rules of grammar, which guide the use and thus meaning of our words, are similar in function to the rules of chess, which govern the use of the pieces. The rules prescribe and proscribe certain move in language and rule out others. Rules also provide a standard whereby we can adjudicate certain moves as opposed to others. This adjudication allows us to regard certain moves successful and others not. One can also regard the rules as command like. He also refers to the rules as convention (PI 355).

Are language-games synonymous with forms of life? This question is probably driven by statements like, "And to imagine a language-game is to imagine a form of life (PI 19)." It's true that our language-games are intertwined within the fabric of our forms of life, and it's also true that language-games themselves are forms of life. However, it's not true that a language-game is logically connected with a form of life, i.e., we can imagine forms of life without language. "Language-game...[or] the speaking of language is part of an activity, or of a form of life (PI 23)." Language-games cannot be imagined without a form of life, but that doesn't mean that forms of life necessarily require language. Again, forms of life can be activities completely devoid of language.

Some thoughts on “forms of life.”

What does Wittgenstein mean by “forms of life?” There seem to be at least four ideas behind Wittgenstein’s idea of forms of life. First, the biology associated with human forms of life, i.e., we share breathing, eating, walking, sleeping in common with all human forms of life. Second, the social cultural forms of life, and the wide variety of social cultural forms of life, such as, language, religious beliefs, political beliefs, games, rule-following, scientific pursuits, etc., etc. Third, that which forms our natural and historical environment, viz., living on Earth, the Earth has one moon, the moon didn’t pop into existence five minutes ago, etc. And, fourth, the forms of life associated with other biological animals. All of these make up our forms of life, and they help condition our grammar, and thus our language-games. Our language-games are embedded within the human forms of life.

Forms of life have developed over time, and as such, have been cultivated from more primitive forms of life (“in the beginning was the deed” -Wittgenstein) including the non-linguistic forms of life.

“Being sure that someone is in pain, doubting whether he is, and so on, are so many natural, instinctive kinds of behavior towards other human beings, and our language is merely an auxiliary to, and further extension of, this relation. Our language-game is an extension of primitive behavior (Z 545).”

If we see forms of life within this wide context, we can begin to understand why Wittgenstein would say, “If a lion could speak, we could not understand him (PI).” Even human language-games, embedded in certain cultural beliefs, can leave us wondering what they mean by the use of their words. If you extend this to lions, one can see why this would be problematic.

What people seem to forget is that Wittgenstein, in his later philosophy, is giving us a method of doing philosophy that is more of an art than a science. He is not presenting theories that put forth dogmatic ideas; in fact, one could argue that Wittgenstein’s philosophy is fighting against dogmatism, and deemphasizing general theories of meaning.

It is the uniform nature of our words that lends itself to theorizing about the general use of meaning. This can be seen clearly in the study of epistemology, namely, what it means to know is not some clearly defined idea without shades of gray. What we get are a variety of uses that do not give us the clarity we are striving for, especially as philosophers. For the most part language hinders our desire for exactness, and our desire for absolute meaning. Instead what we see are words that have a variety of meanings, largely dependent on how they are used in a variety of social activities or "forms of life." The tendency, is to draw arbitrary lines of meaning in order to provide clarity. Where we draw these lines depends on how we view a particular use or definition, that is, what we are stressing. As we stress a particular view of meaning we naturally form an arbitrary boundary that causes more confusion. We tend to get tunnel vision when looking for exactness.

The logic of use that Wittgenstein fosters is one in which the logic is elastic, not given to mathematical precision; and this is seen in the contrast between the exactness of the Tractatus, versus the more elastic view of meaning shown in his later philosophy. His later view is not saying there is no precision, only that we tend to want precision where none can be found. Meaning is not always clearly delineated, but spans a wide variety of uses given in a host of language-games and social activities.

However, there is still another problem, and it is seen by those who think they understand Wittgenstein (including yours truly). The problem is in the application of use as meaning, that is, we find ourselves over emphasizing a particular use that is not in the spirit of Wittgenstein’s enterprise. We tend to push a particular use that is too restrictive, that is, a use that does not allow for the expansive nature of "our forms of life." Thus, we fool ourselves into thinking we are doing what Wittgenstein suggests, but in the final analysis we are using a distorted view of use to perpetuate the very thing Wittgenstein is trying to steer us away from.

The Gettier problems conflate two things, viz., the difference between a claim to know, and the definition of knowledge. Because one believes that they know X, it doesn't follow that they do know it. It must be demonstrated that they do indeed know. All Gettier problems are mistaken knowledge claims. Why do you think the phrase "I thought I knew (Wittgenstein)," has a use? It's because we are often mistaken. The problem isn't with the definition of knowledge as JTB, it's with the claims people make. It's as if Gettier in saying that my claim, based on what I believe is JTB, is the same as being JTB. It's not. I find it strange that so many philosophers think that the Gettier's examples actually tell us something important about the failure of JTB.

I think many or most subjects end up being like this - elusive. What does it mean to be strong? What is reality? What is the purpose of living? I can't think of many subjects that don't end up in the zone of contradictions and confusions, so why should gender be any different? — Tom Storm

I agree with you.

Some people want to discard certain concepts because they don't fit precisely within their view of reality, then they want to impose their conceptual view on the rest of us. Guess what, many of our concepts are like this, that's just the way language is.