The idea that we need to confirm our subjective experiences in controlled settings or they're not veridical is ridiculous on its face. Or, that we need something more than hundreds of thousands of corroborated (objective) reports is so irrational that only someone with a worldview that is set in cement would accept it.

I've seen that interview, but it's worth sharing. Thanks.

https://youtu.be/NVsBFOB7H44

You continue to demonstrate that you don't understand the nature of my argument so I'm not going to continue. For example, you continue to say that it's just subjective and when I point out that there has been objective corroboration from doctors, nurses, friends, and family members you just reject it. That's fine, but it's just not the case, and just a little study of the experiences will show that it's not the case. I don't need peer-reviewed studies to understand that there is objective corroboration.

That said, thanks for the responses.

You strike me as a thinker in earlier stages of development. This is not an insult to your intelligence. Good thinking for most people takes training. It takes years of work. You can never be satisfied, and I seek to improve in little ways every day. — Philosophim

I guess I have to defend my background in philosophy. If you had researched this forum, you would know that I’m not “…a thinker in earlier stages of development…” I’ve been studying philosophy for over 45 years, with a degree (B.A. in Philosophy). I’m quite familiar with symbolic logic and I know some modal logic which means that I know something about correct reasoning, including how to analyze arguments. In the last 20 years, I’ve spent much of my time studying epistemology, linguistic analysis, and Ludwig Wittgenstein’s later philosophy, especially his final notes called On Certainty. I consider my knowledge of philosophy to be at least the level of someone with a Master’s degree. I started working on my Master’s degree in 1982 but didn’t finish it.

One problem I see is that you are still stuck on how to correctly use inductive thinking. If you re-read, that's really my focus. Inductive thinking is by definition, not necessarily true. So even the best of inductive arguments is not considered a sound argument, but a supposition, or conjecture at best. Considering there are several competing conjectures that your inductive argument must address and overcome, its not in a good position. — Philosophim

Yes, I know that’s your focus, and anyone with a little background in logic knows that inductive reasoning is not necessarily true. Only the conclusions of good deductive arguments follow necessarily. Inductive reasoning is either strong or weak based on the evidence. Most of our reasoning, including science, is inductive. A word about sound arguments (soundness is a property of deductive arguments, it includes validity and the truth of the premises), in logic it’s used as a criterion to describe good deductive arguments, although the truth of the premises of an inductive argument is parallel to soundness in deductive arguments.

Second, you're assuming the argument that I'm trying to make instead of really understanding it. I want to re-emphasize again, that I am not questioning whether people experience NDE's or OBEs. If you re-read, you seem to want to re-argue their realness when I've already long accepted that they're real. My point is that a personal experience does not mean strong or conclusive evidence about objective reality. — Philosophim

I tried to address this in another post, but you seem to ignore what I’m saying. You say the experiences are real, but there are two senses of real involved in my argument. First, real could mean that they are real in the sense that any experience is real, including hallucinations, dreams, delusions, etc. However, I use the word veridical as opposed to real because real isn’t as precise. Most researchers who talk about NDEs, whether for or against, want to answer the question, “Are NDEs veridical?” This is the question at hand.

Now, does that mean that when we dream our consciousness actually travels to another realm where we can fly? No. Its just a common brain activity while we sleep. Personal experience is not evidence of objective reality. Personal experience is out interpretation of objective reality. And just because we interpret reality a certain way, it does not mean it is a certain way. Ever seen an optical illusion? That's our interpretation ability going overdrive, the illusion is not actually happening in reality apart from ourselves. — Philosophim

Your use of real is that the experiences are not veridical (not part of objective reality), i.e., that they are similar to dreams or hallucinations which are real experiences but not veridical. I’ve assumed all along that this is what you probably meant. Also, when I answer your points, I’m trying to address not only you but others who are reading this thread, which is why I point this out.

My emphasis is not on 'science', but deduction and objective testing. Science is a good go to, because articles are peer reviewed. Meaning they must hold to high standards from the rest of the community, and are always open to having their research examined and questioned. We want to believe in the power of induction and personal experience, and while it can be useful in many instances, it also has many known flaws. — Philosophim

You don’t seem to understand that most arguments are inductive (including science), not deductive. Moreover, you have never given a deductive argument. You also dismiss the power of inductive reasoning by saying it has many known flaws. I’m not sure what you mean by “known flaws” apart from it doesn’t give us absolute knowledge. Obviously, weak inductive arguments are flawed because they lack the kind of strength that would give us good reasons to believe their conclusions. Strong inductive reasoning is not flawed in terms of the strength of its conclusion. Most of science is inductive and the paper you cited is also inductive. You don’t seem to have a good background in logic because you fail to give inductive reasoning its proper place in the reasoning process, you, at the very least diminish its power. It is quite obvious that what you said about yourself in terms of dabbling in philosophy is true, and it shows. Philosophy for me is quite beyond being a hobby or something I dabble in.

So even the best of inductive arguments is not considered a sound argument, but a supposition, or conjecture at best. — Philosophim

This is just silly. It doesn’t comport with just a basic understanding of logic. Moreover, again, soundness is a property of deductive arguments because it means that the argument is valid and the premises are true. For someone to say, “You strike me as a thinker in earlier stages of development,” is laughable given these comments on logic.

So your argument has several problems it needs to solve. How do you reconcile the fact that we can duplicate NDEs in neurology and oxygen deprivation scenarios? How do you reconcile the fact that no OBE has ever been shown to see something that was placed outside of their bodies field of view during the time in which the NDE should be occurring? There are real problems that if not solved, cut the inductive argument that consciousness survives our death into pieces. — Philosophim

Just because we can duplicate NDEs, it doesn’t follow that NDEs are not objectively real. It just means we know what things can trigger similar aspects of the NDE. It also just means that the brain plays a role in consciousness as we know it. It doesn’t follow that duplicating NDEs demonstrates that consciousness is solely a construct of the brain.

For someone who claims to have studied NDEs and who continues to say things like, “How do you reconcile the fact that no OBE has ever been shown to see something that was placed outside of their bodies field of view during the time in which the NDE should be occurring?” - is completely mystifying to me. There have been many corroborative NDE accounts of people seeing and hearing things that are nowhere near their bodies. Just a cursory study of NDEs should dispel this belief. You can continue to deny that this is the case, but there are just too many accounts that contradict this belief. People have heard conversations in other parts of the hospital, have heard and seen things happening many miles from where their body is located, and have seen people in their NDE that they didn’t know were dead, this happens all the time.

At least you tried to give an argument, I’ll give you credit for that, but you haven’t diminished the strength of my argument one iota. Your arguments are very weak, and your conclusions don’t follow from the facts of NDEs. The truth of the premises of my argument stands based on the following:

The fourth criterion is the truth of the premises. To know if the premises are true, we need corroboration of the testimonial evidence, a high degree of consistency, and firsthand testimony. In all or most of these cases, it seems clear that we have all three. We have millions of accounts that can be corroborated by family members, friends, doctors, nurses, and hospice workers. Corroboration is important in establishing some objectivity to what is a very subjective experience. It gives credence and credibility to the accounts. One example of corroboration is given in Pam's NDE out of Atlanta, GA, which can be seen on YouTube, although the video is old.

Consistency is also important to the establishment of the truth of the premises. We have a high degree of consistency across a wide variety of reports. What are these consistent reports?

1) Seeing one's body from a third person perspective, that is, from outside one's body, and hearing and seeing what is happening around their bodies.
2) Having intense feelings of being loved, intense feelings of peace, and the absence of pain.
3) Seeing a light or tunnel in the distance and feeling that one is being drawn to the light, or moving towards the light.
4) Seeing deceased loved ones.
5) Seeing beings of light that one may interpret as Jesus, Mary, Muhammad, an angel, or just a loving being that one may feel connected with.
6) Heightened sensory experiences, namely, feeling that one is having an ultra-real experience, as opposed to a dream or a hallucination. This happens even when there is no measurable brain activity.
7) Communication that happens mind-to-mind, not verbally.
8) Seeing beautiful landscapes.
9) Seeing people who are getting ready or waiting to be born.
10) Having a life review by a loving being who is not judgmental, but simply showing you how important it is to love, and the importance of your actions on those you come in contact with.
11) Feeling as though one has returned home. This is also confirmed by people who were told they chose to come to Earth.
12) A feeling of oneness with everything, as though we are part of one consciousness.
13) Memories of who they are return, as though they temporarily forgot who they were, and where they came from.
14) There are also reports of knowledge returning, and many questions being answered as quickly as they think of the question.
15) Understanding that ultimately we cannot be harmed and that everything is perfect as it is.
16) That we are eternal beings simply entering into one of many realities. We are simply higher beings who choose to have a human experience. Ultimately, we are not human, being human is just a temporary experience. Our humanity ends when we die, then we assume our original form.

Another aid in establishing the truth of the testimonial evidence is firsthand accounts, as opposed to hearsay. There are thousands of firsthand accounts being reported by the International Association of Near-Death Studies, and according to polling, there are many millions of firsthand accounts.

It sounds like you don't have a lot of time left. I've been harsh on the subject material, but not on you.
You may not see it as a gift, but really, it is. You will die. I will die. And that will be it. So don't waste your time. Fill it with family, friends, loved ones. Explore, fulfill your last curiosities, and do the things you've always wanted to do. Because after its over, its done. That's why we come here. To really think about things and sift the lies, illusions, and artificial hopes from reality. A life lived real is a really lived life. Good luck and enjoy your time. — Philosophim

This is a bit funny and a bit condescending, but I got a laugh out of it so that’s good. The illness I alluded to is something I’ve had all my life, but it’s not like I’m on my deathbed. Of course, turning 74 in September does mean my life is getting shorter and shorter. I’m not afraid of death, and to give me advice on living and dying is quite condescending as if I don’t understand what’s important. I guess I need advice since I don’t think about such things (ha-ha). You probably mean well, so I don’t take offense.

I find it curious that some people think that people who believe there is an afterlife are somehow afraid that their existence is coming to an end, so we grasp at straws (beliefs) to comfort ourselves. We can always go back and forth on the psychological factors contributing to our beliefs, but none of us escape this problem. The psychological reasons/causes for what we all believe are very strong, often overriding what’s logical. I considered myself a Christian for many years and what can be a more powerful belief than thinking you’re a child of God going to heaven and escaping hell? I rejected the belief (not all the beliefs, but the resurrection, that Christ was God, hell, demons, etc.) after reconsidering the evidence. That means that many of the people in my family, friends, and others would look at me in quite a different way. I’ve never been afraid to go against the grain, and such is the case with my beliefs in the afterlife. I would say that I don’t care what others think, but that’s not quite true, I do care what some people think, but the point is that it’s difficult to buck any system of beliefs that have dominated one’s life for years. The point of saying this is that my life belies the idea that I would hold to such beliefs for what you seem to suggest.

The only thing that matters to me is the evidence or good reasons that support my argument, not some fear of ceasing to exist, fear of hell, or some other fear. That said, I’m not superhuman, of course I have certain fears. For example, I don’t want to die in agony or some such thing, but I think the actual point of death (that moment) is more peaceful than most people think. And if we cease to exist after the death of the body, so be it, it won’t matter, will it? Of course, I don’t believe that to be the case, in fact, I know it’s not the case.

Finally, your epistemology relies too heavily on the power of science to explain, as if epistemological considerations of science are paramount to knowing something is the case. However, much of what we know is through everyday testimonial evidence, which is why I think this argument is so powerful. We can go back and forth, no it’s not, yes it is, but I think my argument continues to stand as strong evidence for an afterlife.

That said, I appreciate the responses.

First, just a word about the concept of death, this concept is used in a variety of contexts and it’s not important to my argument because NDEs can and have happened when people are not experiencing a life-threatening situation. However, most do happen in life-threatening situations. That said, most of the time when I refer to death I’m referring to clinical death, viz, when a doctor would pronounce someone dead.

It’s the experience itself, the claim that people have had an OBE, and their experiences while having an OBE, which is the central point of my argument. It’s what people see during their NDE that supports their belief that they had an OBE. What constitutes an NDE are certain common characteristics laid out in the Greyson scale in the following link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271857657_The_Near-Death_Experience_Scale (Citation: Greyson, B. (2007). The near-death experience as a focus of clinical attention. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 195(10), 883-890.)

There have also been comparative studies done by Dr. Parnia (professor of Medicine at the NYU Langone Medical Center). This study (“Aware—AWAreness during Resuscitation—A Prospective study” published in Resuscitation.) used the Greyson scale as a guide to compare the experiences of cardiac arrest survivors and whether they were genuine NDEs as opposed to hallucinations or dream-like experiences.

Other studies, viz., by Thonnard et al. (2013) source “Characteristics of NDE memories as compared to real or imagined NDEs” published in PLoS ONE explored the neurological basis of NDEs and also used the Greyson scale to determine if the memories were more consistent with real memories or with the memories of imagined events.

So, the Greyson scale has been used as a reliable source for many studies to determine between genuine NDEs and other phenomena.

Along with the Greyson scale, there have been a variety of other studies that show the common characteristics of NDEs. These studies include, but are not limited to the following:

1) Noyes and Slymen’s Near-Death Experience Scale (Russell Noyes and Donald Slymen)
2) Ring’s Weighted Core Experience Index (Kenneth Ring)
3) Zaleski’s Narrative Analysis (Carol Zasleski)
4) Moody’s Common Elements of NDEs (Raymond Moody)
5) Kellehear’s Cross-Cultural Studies (Allan Kellehear)


Besides the common characteristic studies that have been done from a variety of sources, other studies confirm the objective nature of NDEs and hence the veridical nature of these experiences. Many of these individuals were in a state where normal perceptions should have been impossible or very difficult to explain.

Are you understanding my points? I never denied people don't have these experiences. I denied that they logically lead to a conclusion that there was life after death, both rationally, and do not hold inductively when compared to other stronger inductive arguments that show our consciousness does not live on after death. — Philosophim

The question is, “Do you understand my points?” If people are having these experiences, i.e., they are veridical, then my conclusion follows based on the numbers, variety, and truth of testimonials (corroborative evidence and consistency of reports). I used the word veridical for a reason, because if you’re acknowledging that the experiences are real (veridical), then how can you deny the reports? Unless you’re simply saying that the experiences are real but not veridical. If you’re saying that they are veridical but that they can be explained in another way, then you haven’t given good reasons to suppose that’s the case. The paper you cited doesn’t take into account much of the research that has been done and oversimplifies the NDE research. As I said, I’ve been studying these accounts for many years and have read many of the counterarguments, most try to explain the memory reports in very dubious ways, which I and many others have found wanting. Many of the memory counterarguments are only speculating about how these memories might have occurred.

To argue that my argument doesn’t “…logically lead to [my] conclusion…” you have to demonstrate that the premises aren’t true, and you’ve failed miserably at that. At best your inductive arguments are weak, even the paper you cited is weak. Moreover, you seem to ignore the many studies that have been done to support the truth of my premises. We can go back and forth about the research, but I don’t think it will solve whose research is better, which is why I go back to the testimonial reports. For most people, after listening to many reports, and I have read and listened to more than 5000 reports, they speak for themselves. Any normal person after hearing corroborative and consistent testimonial evidence is going to concede to the veridical nature of the reports which leads to the conclusion (whether you do or not, it doesn’t matter) that consciousness is not confined to the brain, and the contention that consciousness is not limited to the body.

Another important point is the nature of consciousness itself, i.e., can consciousness be explained by simply appealing to brain functions? The answer for me at least, and for many other scientists and philosophers, is no. I like many of the points David Chalmers raises in his article The Puzzle of Consciousness in which he distinguishes between understanding many of the cognitive functions, such as perception, memory, and learning (the easy problem of consciousness), which much can be explained through science; and the problem of trying to address our subjective experiences (the hard problem of consciousness), viz., what it’s like to be conscious. It’s not just awareness but that we are aware of being aware (my point).

In Nagel’s 1974 paper, What Is It Like to Be a Bat Nagel also explores subjective experiences and the nature of consciousness. He concludes that consciousness has an irreducible aspect, and I agree based on my studies which go beyond what I’ve given in this thread. He further concludes that the physicalist approach to consciousness is not sufficient to address our subjective experiences and that we need a fundamentally new approach to concepts and methods. This paper agrees with many of Chalmers' points.

Chalmers goes on to explain that there is a gap between what we can understand and explain via physical science and trying to explain our subjective experiences. This is why some argue that our subjective experiences are an illusion (my point not Chalmers), because of the difficulty in explaining subjective experience. Chalmers concludes that although we have made significant progress in our understanding of the easy problem of consciousness, the hard problem remains. It’s a profound mystery. I agree and would point out that although I believe it can be logically demonstrated that consciousness is not a brain function, we are still at a loss to explain the nature of consciousness. I speculate that consciousness is the creative force behind the universe and that consciousness resides in a place where the laws of consciousness and creation are much different from the laws of this universe.

Chalmers proposes that there are three possible ways to solve the hard problem of consciousness. First is the idea that even if we don’t have all the answers presently, sometime in the future science will be able to explain consciousness. This is the optimistic view of reductionism, given enough time the problem will be solved. Chalmers also points out a second way which he refers to as mysterianism, which is a form of materialism or physicalism. This is the idea that consciousness is a physical process, but we will never understand it. It’s a mystery. And third is dualism, which just distinguishes, basically, between the mental and the physical, and the mental encompasses consciousness. Chalmers also makes the point that all of the work in neuroscience only addresses the easy problem of consciousness. The hard problem of consciousness is barely addressed, if at all. Most research doesn’t even come close to addressing the hard problem, and this should at least give you pause about what can be said about the point of origin of consciousness. To claim that we know how consciousness arises is simply false, we’re not even close to answering this question.

I believe that NDEs do show that consciousness is not confined to the brain, but this doesn’t address the problem of what is consciousness. Although I believe consciousness is the source of this reality (our observable universe), I don’t believe we have a clue about the nature of consciousness or its source, if there is a source.

Although this post doesn’t address every question or challenge it gives more information to support my conclusions and raises other considerations.

I was a little surprised to find you had not addressed my response to you. I linked you a nice article and addressed your points. To ignore someone who does this and repeat what you spoke about earlier is avoidance, and an indicator that you don't have the answers to the previous points. — Philosophim

First of all, my health and age have affected my responses. So, your conclusion that I'm avoiding you and don't have answers to your posts is incorrect. There's nothing that you've posted that's difficult to answer, and much of what you've posted shows a lack of understanding of the subject of NDEs, even the paper you posted can be addressed, although it would take more time.

he three epistemological elements of my argument include logic, sensory experience, and testimonial evidence. These three ways of acquiring knowledge are sufficient in themselves to make a reasonable conclusion that consciousness survives death.
— Sam26

No, they are not.

1. Logic indicates you are making an induction, not a reasonable conclusion. Logic also indicates per the article that I linked, that the existence of NDE's does not mean that there was evidence of actual death at the time the person had the vision/dream. — Philosophim

First, I've given the criteria of a good inductive argument, and based on those criteria the inductive conclusion is overwhelmingly reasonable. (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/912262)

There is a reason why these experiences are called Near-Death and not death unless we're talking about clinical death, which is an accepted term (clinical death) in the medical community. People can continue to say that it's not death, and that's fine, but the experiences they're having coupled with the corroboration give power to their experiences. Not all NDEs happen when people are near death, some have happened quite spontaneously.

2. Sensory experience has been disproven by the fact people can sink in and out of consciousness in anesthesia, and it has not been conclusively pin pointed when exactly a person had a NDE. It is not that NDE's do not happen, its that there's no indicator they are actual experiences after brain death. To conclude there is consciousness after death, one must have an example of consciousness after actual death and a return to life. — Philosophim

Just because people can sink in and out of consciousness when anesthetized doesn't invalidate the experience. There have been plenty of NDEs that have happened when there is no measurable brain activity (Pam's e.g. is one). There have also been experiences where people have described what they are seeing on various machines (e.g. in an operating room) at particular times during their experience, so it's fairly easy to know based on what they're seeing that it happened at T1 or T2.

I don't know about you, but if someone tells me that they see X during their experience and it's corroborated by doctors, nurses, staff, and family members, then that's a veridical experience. You can keep denying what millions of people are saying because you're entrenched in a materialistic worldview, but it won't change the facts. Most people generally know the difference between a real (veridical) experience and one that is not. If this wasn't so we couldn't generally rely on our sensory experiences.

Your responses demonstrate that you haven't studied these experiences, and your responses clearly show that. I've been researching this subject for about 17 years and have heard most of the counterarguments and they are some of the weakest counterarguments I've ever heard.

3. You only conclude a bias of testimonial evidence. You do not include the majority of cases in which people do not have NDE's when in similar near death experiences. You do not include the nightmares, or the visions of things that do not exist. You cherry pick nice and positive experiences then say, "They're all like that." They are all not. When taken as a whole, NDE's are very much like dreams and minimal conscious processing. — Philosophim

I don't know of any other testimonial evidence that would counter NDEs. Many people who are in a similar condition don't have an NDE but that hardly invalidates all the millions of people who have had the experience. That's just the nature of our experiences, some people who have similar experiences give different reports but that doesn't invalidate all other reports.

I don't cherry-pick anything, I've examined many thousands of reports that have been given from around the world and have concluded that consciousness survives death. Again, I'm not aware of NDEs that don't generally confirm an OBE, so I don't know what you're referring to.

Many NDEs haven't been studied so I pick the ones that have been studied, but that's not cherry-picking, and here's the rub, the ones that have been studied confirm what others have been saying about their experience. Any examination of testimonial evidence would do the same. So, your cherry-picking allegation is weak, to say the least.

This is all I'm going to respond to because I've addressed most of the other points you've made in other parts of the thread. What seems strange to me is that you seem to ignore so many other studies and peer-reviewed material, which at least acknowledges that many of these questions are open to many scientists (open for them, not for me). You seem to think it's an open-and-shut case. Nonsense.

I stand by my conclusion that consciousness survives death. I'll go so far as to say that consciousness is the basis for all reality and that what we are here (being human) is not our essential nature. I'll add a further point, i.e., we are here having a human experience, but it's temporary.

Sorry I can't respond to everything or everybody, I just don't have the energy nor the inclination. I'll respond and post from time to time but that's about it. Sometimes I get spurts of energy and will respond more often but that doesn't happen much.

Thanks for the effort @Philosophim

An interesting shared NDE.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-jqDHMQp_s

My view of epistemology is that there are several ways of acquiring knowledge that aren’t dependent on a scientific approach (experimentation, data collection, and peer-reviewed papers). This isn’t to say that there isn’t scientific research into the subject of NDEs, or that the scientific approach isn’t helpful. My idea is to keep this argument as simple as possible and still maintain a strong inductive argument that most people can follow. The three epistemological elements of my argument include logic, sensory experience, and testimonial evidence. These three ways of acquiring knowledge are sufficient in themselves to make a reasonable conclusion that consciousness survives death. Moreover, this epistemological point of view is the same view that most of us take in our everyday lives, and it’s quite reliable apart from science. Again, I believe that the everyday person who isn’t familiar with a lot of scientific jargon or even philosophical jargon can make the reasonable inference that we survive death. By reasonable, I mean that the evidence is strong enough to claim that one knows the conclusion is true and justified.

I’m not claiming that our knowledge in this case is known with absolute certainty, just as most of our knowledge isn’t known with absolute certainty. I’m claiming that the evidence is known with a high degree of certainty. I understand that most of you know this, but some think that a belief/conclusion is only knowledge if it follows necessarily. This is false.

I have already given the inductive argument so there is no need to give it again. Here is the link https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/912262 . This is the logic behind the argument.

Testimonial evidence can be quite weak, but in certain cases, it can be quite strong. I’m claiming that the testimonial evidence is very strong based on the variety of sources from around the world, the relative consistency of the sources, and the corroborative evidence that adds an objective component to the testimonial evidence. This objective component also dispels the notion that the experience is a hallucination, delusion, dream, lack of oxygen, etc.

Whether a person is defined as dead or not doesn’t diminish the strength of the argument. Why? Because it’s the out-of-body experience and the sensory experiences that people have that suggest that consciousness is not confined to the brain. And to think that someone can point to some brain activity to show that it’s the brain that creates consciousness is similar to pointing to a component in a radio to show that what you’re listening to is confined to the radio. It doesn't follow.

The experiences of NDErs seeing deceased relatives and people that they didn’t know were dead lends credence to the conclusion that consciousness survives death. This doesn’t even include deathbed visions where people see their loved ones come to them just before death. I don’t include these in my argument because they are so subjective, but when combined with NDEs they seem to support the idea that consciousness continues far beyond this life.

Another important point is that many of the people who have NDEs report that their experience is not diminished, which is what you might expect with a brain that isn’t getting enough oxygen or blood, in fact, it is heightened. By heightened I mean their sensory experiences are much sharper, they see colors that they haven’t seen before, and their vision is reported to be expanded (360-degree vision) in many cases. This reality seems dreamlike by comparison to what they see when out of their body. In many cases, people claim that this reality is a dumbed-down version of that reality. You would think that dying brains would have less sensory acuity than a normal brain, not more.

Finally, I want to add that I don't think that any religion fully captures the idea of life after death, so this isn't about any religious idea or doctrine. I'm certainly not religious, i.e., I don't subscribe to any religious ideology. However, there is some overlap.

No. It is a cold and unerring fact. First, we can cite the complete lack of objective evidence. There has never been any signs of life after something has died. Second, we can cite the objective evidence of how the brain functions, and how it ties to people's personalities and ability to function in the world. Years of drug studies and brain surgery have demonstrated that you are your brain. There is no other alternative. — Philosophim

First, what you're claiming is not an unerring fact. Just because someone claims something is factual doesn't make it so. And your claim that there is no objective evidence shows just how little you know of the subject. Many thousands of NDE testimonials have been corroborated by doctors, nurses, friends, and family. If someone claims to see something at T1 and others corroborate that claim, then it's objective testimonial evidence, period.

Years of drug studies and brain surgery have demonstrated that you are your brain. There is no other alternative. — Philosophim

There is no other alternative, what a silly statement, and an arrogant one too. Many scientists dispute this. In any case, my argument stands.

Incorrect. Cite me a case in which a person had complete brain death and I'll recant. — Philosophim

I'll ask you one more time, what do you mean by complete brain death? I never use any such terms. When I speak of death, I mean clinical death, i.e., no measurable brain activity, no heartbeat, and no breathing. Are you disputing that there are any NDEs that occur when a person is pronounced clinically dead? If you want an e.g. of someone who had an NDE when there was no measurable brain activity then I would give the example of Pam's NDE out of Atlanta, GA

They have also been reported with the blood completely drained from their brains.
— Sam26

This is again, impossible. To completely drain the blood from a brain you would have to completely drain the blood from the body. Again, cite this case please. — Philosophim

This is a well documented case, here is one of many videos on this NDE.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNbdUEqDB-k

I'm not sure what you mean by fully brain-dead. People have had these experiences when there is no measurable brain activity. They have also been reported with the blood completely drained from their brain. Besides what matters are their reports while claiming to be outside their bodies, and that these reports have been corroborated thousands and thousands of times which adds an objective component to the testimonials.

I never referred to these experiences as after-death experiences, those are your words, not mine.

To say that "...there is no evidence of life after death" is just an expression of an opinion. I've given a well-structured inductive argument that supports my conclusion.

How can I know that the experience that I'm having (or remember having) is a near death experience? — jkop

If you had an NDE it wouldn't be something that easily forgotten. Moreover, you would know based on what others have reported and comparing your experience with theirs.

Just listen to this NDE, it may answer your questions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZfaPCwjguk

Could millions be liars and or delusional and or themselves persuaded before its first conversion into data? Maybe, but assume not. Could you say (and I haven't looked into this) the same about those who claim to be born again, saved by the holy spirit (speaking in tongues, muscle spasms, new outlook etc) or those who claim Satori etc? Or visitations/alien viewings? — ENOAH

Of course it's not just the numbers, as I've said, it's all the criteria that make a strong inductive argument. So, the numbers are impressive, but numbers don't give us the truth or the facts. You have to look at the testimonial evidence as a whole which leads to a strong conclusion.

I don't put much stock in religious belief, there is some overlap, but overall, the evidence for an afterlife based on NDEs is overwhelming. The evidence for some religious belief is very subjective and flimsy. NDEs give a much better picture of the afterlife than any religious view and with stronger testimonial evidence.

What if there might be other explanations for the consistencies besides that the claims are factual? — ENOAH

I never said that NDEs are consistent because they are factual. I said that the fact that NDEs are generally consistent gives support to the truth of the testimonials.

I take the testimonials at face value unless there are good reasons not to. I would suggest re-reading that post so that you fully understand the logic.

Thanks for the compliment, and the reply.

This is an updated version of the argument with some editing and added statements for clarity. This was copied from my posts in Quora.

This is the argument I put forth in my thread Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body, in The Philosophy Forum under the name Sam26. I have also talked about this argument in other philosophy forums. I say this to allay questions of plagiarism. I have been posting on this subject for at least 12-15 years across many platforms.

My claim is that there is sufficient testimonial evidence to reasonably conclude that consciousness survives (that we survive, albeit in another form) the death of the body. So, I am making the claim that I know the conclusion of my argument is true. And, although I believe I could make other claims (and I will in later posts) based on the evidence, that is, claims of knowledge (by knowledge I mean justified true belief), I am limiting the scope of the conclusion in this initial post to keep confusion to a minimum. By limited, I mean I am not trying to give evidence of a God, heaven, that we are eternal beings, or any other spiritual or religious idea or doctrine; nor am I trying to give evidence of many of the other claims people are making while having such an experience. Although, as I have said, I do believe there is strong evidence to support other conclusions, and these conclusions have varying degrees of certainty, just as many of our everyday conclusions have varying degrees of certainty (subjective as well as objective certainty).

Preliminaries:

The first question is, what makes a strong inductive argument? The criteria for a good inductive argument are much different from the criteria for a good deductive argument. The criteria of a good inductive argument are as follows:

(1) number
(2) variety
(3) scope of the conclusion
(4) truth of the premises
(5) cogency

First, number. It seems rather obvious that if you have a greater number of testimonials that say something happened, then the stronger the argument. This does not mean that the conclusion relies solely on numbers because numbers in themselves are not always sufficient. It is important to the understanding of this argument that all of the criteria work together to strengthen the conclusion.

Second, variety. The greater the variety of cases cited the stronger the conclusion. When examining the conclusion of an inductive argument, the conclusion is either strong or weak, which is much different from a good deductive argument, where the conclusion follows with absolute necessity if it is sound (soundness means the deductive argument is both valid and the premises are true). The difference is what is probably or likely the case (inductive arguments), versus what necessarily follows (deductive arguments). A common misconception among some people is that if we do not know with absolute certainty then we do not know, but this is an error. Most of what we know is based on inductive reasoning, including many of the claims of science. Most of it is probability-based, so it is not known with absolute certainty, it is known with a high degree of certainty. So, when I use the phrase “I know..” in reference to the conclusion of this argument, I am referring to what is known based on what is probably the case; and since probability varies significantly I should say that I believe that the conclusion follows with a very high degree of probability based on the strength of the evidence.

Third, the scope of the conclusion. This has already been covered briefly in the opening paragraph (I'm referring to an opening paragraph in my Quora space.), it means that the less the conclusion claims the stronger the argument. In other words, conclusions that are broad in scope are much harder to defend. A conclusion that is limited in scope is easier to defend. The reason is that conclusions that are too broad require much more evidence than conclusions that are limited in their scope.

Fourth, truth of the premises. This means that the premises must be true, which by the way, is the same criteria that make a good deductive argument, that is, a good deductive argument must be sound (soundness has to do with whether the deductive argument is valid, plus the premises must be true).

(a) Since we are dealing with testimonial evidence, to know if the testimonial evidence is true, we first need corroboration, that is, we need an objective way to verify the testimonial evidence. This helps to establish the truth of the claims or the truth of the premises. Moreover, it helps add an objective way of verifying subjective experiences. There is both a subjective and objective component to this argument. The objective component helps to determine the objective facts of the experiences.

(b) Another important factor in determining the truth of testimonial evidence is firsthand testimony, as opposed to hearsay or secondhand testimony. Firsthand testimony is stronger than hearsay or second-hand testimony, all things being equal. This is an important component of all testimonial evidence and should be carefully considered when examining any kind of testimonial evidence.

(c) Consistency of the reports is another important criterion in terms of getting to the truth. However, testimonial evidence does not have to be perfectly consistent to be credible. When dealing with a large number of reports you will inevitably find some inconsistency. So, inconsistency itself is not enough to rule out the reports unless the inconsistency is widespread, and of such a number, that it affects the quality and number of consistent reports. So, although consistency is important, it must be looked at in terms of the overall picture. We often find inconsistent testimonial reports but that does not mean that all of the reports should be dismissed, it just means that our testimonial evidence should be based on those reports that are consistent.

Fifth is cogency. You rarely hear this criterion, but it is very important in terms of the effectiveness of the argument. There is a sense where any argument's (deductive or inductive) effectiveness is going to be based on whether the person to whom the argument is given, knows the premises are true. For example, if I give the following argument:

The base of a souffle is a roux.
This salmon dish is a souffle.
Hence, the base of this salmon dish is a roux (Dr. Byron I. Bitar, Classical Christian Wisdom, p. 70).

If you do not know what a souffle or a roux is, then you do not know if the premises are true, so how would you know if the conclusion is true? You may know that the argument is valid based on its form, but you would not know if the premises are true. So, you would not know if it is sound. For any argument to be effective, you have to know if the premises are true; and since knowledge varies from person to person, an argument's effectiveness is going to vary from person to person.

Now we have given some of the preliminaries, we will proceed to the argument itself.

The Inductive Argument:

The following argument is based on the testimonial evidence of those who have experienced an NDE, and the conclusion follows with a high degree of certainty. As such, one can claim to know the conclusion is true. This argument makes such a claim.

Each of the aforementioned criteria serves to strengthen the testimonial evidence. All of the criteria in the previous paragraphs work hand-in-hand to strengthen the conclusion, and the criteria serve to strengthen any claim to knowledge. If we have a large enough pool of evidence based on these five criteria, we can say with confidence that we know that consciousness survives the death of the body, namely, we can say what is probably the case, but not what is necessarily the case.

Again, if there is a high degree of probability that these testimonials reflect an objective reality, then we can also say with confidence, that we know consciousness survives the death of the body. Thus, our knowledge is based on objective criteria, not on purely subjective claims.

We will now look at the testimonial evidence in terms of the five stated criteria, and how these testimonials support the conclusion.

First, what is the number of people who claim to have had an NDE? According to a 1992 Gallop poll about 5% of the population has experienced an NDE; and even if this poll is off by a little, we are still talking about millions of people. So, the number of accounts of NDEs is very high, much higher than what we would normally need to add to the strength of the conclusion.

Also, as was mentioned in the previous post, numbers in themselves are not enough, which is why the other criteria must be coupled with numbers.

The second criterion of good testimonial evidence is variety, that is, do we have evidence from a variety of sources? The answer to this question is in the affirmative. NDEs have been reported in every culture from around the world, which by definition means that we are getting reports from different religious views, and different world views. NDEs also span every age group, from young children to the middle-aged and finally to the aged. The testimonial reports come from doctors, nurses, scientists, atheists, and agnostics, literally from every imaginable educational level and background. NDEs occur in a variety of settings, including drowning, electrocution, while awake, while on the operating table, after a heart attack, etc. People have also reported having shared an NDE with someone else, although rarely. They have happened when there is no heartbeat, with the blood drained from the brain, and with no measurable brain activity. They have been reported to happen with a minimal amount of stress, that is, without being near death.

The third criterion is the scope of the conclusion, and the scope of this conclusion is limited to consciousness surviving the body. The conclusion claims that we can know that consciousness survives bodily death.

The fourth criterion is the truth of the premises. To know if the premises are true, we need corroboration of the testimonial evidence, a high degree of consistency, and firsthand testimony. In all or most of these cases, it seems clear that we have all three. We have millions of accounts that can be corroborated by family members, friends, doctors, nurses, and hospice workers. Corroboration is important in establishing some objectivity to what is a very subjective experience. It gives credence and credibility to the accounts. One example of corroboration is given in Pam's NDE out of Atlanta, GA, which can be seen on YouTube, although the video is old.

Consistency is also important to the establishment of the truth of the premises. We have a high degree of consistency across a wide variety of reports. What are these consistent reports?

1) Seeing one's body from a third person perspective, that is, from outside one's body, and hearing and seeing what is happening around their bodies.
2) Having intense feelings of being loved, intense feelings of peace, and the absence of pain.
3) Seeing a light or tunnel in the distance and feeling that one is being drawn to the light, or moving towards the light.
4) Seeing deceased loved ones.
5) Seeing beings of light that one may interpret as Jesus, Mary, Muhammad, an angel, or just a loving being that one may feel connected with.
6) Heightened sensory experiences, namely, feeling that one is having an ultra-real experience, as opposed to a dream or a hallucination. This happens even when there is no measurable brain activity.
7) Communication that happens mind-to-mind, not verbally.
8) Seeing beautiful landscapes.
9) Seeing people who are getting ready or waiting to be born.
10) Having a life review by a loving being who is not judgmental, but simply showing you how important it is to love, and the importance of your actions on those you come in contact with.
11) Feeling as though one has returned home. This is also confirmed by people who were told they chose to come to Earth.
12) A feeling of oneness with everything, as though we are part of one consciousness.
13) Memories of who they are return, as though they temporarily forgot who they were, and where they came from.
14) There are also reports of knowledge returning, and many questions being answered as quickly as they think of the question.
15) Understanding that ultimately we cannot be harmed and that everything is perfect as it is.
16) That we are eternal beings simply entering into one of many realities. We are simply higher beings that choose to have a human experience. Ultimately, we are not human, being human is just a temporary experience. Our humanity ends when we die, then we assume our original form.

Another aid in establishing the truth of the testimonial evidence is firsthand accounts, as opposed to hearsay. There are thousands of firsthand accounts being reported by the International Association of Near-Death Studies, and according to polling, there are many millions of firsthand accounts.

The fifth criterion is the cogency of the premises. Whether the argument is cogent for you depends on many factors, but many people have heard of near-death experiences, so the concept is not an unfamiliar one. It is not going to be cogent for everyone, but with a little study and reading it can be cogent. It is not difficult to understand the concept. Although it is probably going to be difficult to understand how it is metaphysically possible. This argument claims that it is highly probable that consciousness survives the death of the body, and that the conclusion is very strong based on what makes for a strong inductive argument.

The further claim of this argument is that I know that I know the conclusion is true. Is it possible the conclusion is wrong? Of course it is possible, but we do not want to base a belief on what is possible, but on what is likely the case. All kinds of things are possible, but that does not mean we should believe them.

Even if someone had the perfect proof it wouldn't change a thing. Why? Because many of the reasons or causes for believing or not believing in God have nothing to do with logic. Most of our beliefs are the result of culture, peer pressure, psychological predispositions, and a host of other reasons or causes. So, again, no proof, even if perfect would change a thing. Most people would still reject it. It's not a given that people would recognize good logic even if they saw it, and this is true even for people who have studied logic. Remember that most of the premises in an argument can be twisted this or that way. The arguments over the concepts alone can go on for years, and they have.

That said, I do think there are answers to some of these questions, but they raise other questions more difficult to answer.

I'm not a fan of spending too much time on secondary sources. I think that for the most part, they lead us astray, not always of course. Most of my time is spent reading primary source material even though Witt's OC is incomplete. He's written enough prior material to give us a good idea of his thinking. And even the ideas I've tried to expand have some connection to passages in OC. I think OC is the most lucid of all Witt's writings, so I try to take the passages in OC at face value without trying to overanalyze them. Whether I succeed at this is another story. I think when we were explaining objects in the thread on TLP there was a tendency to go beyond Witt's ideas, i.e., to overanalyze the concept. I don't want to be too dogmatic about what I'm saying here, but I think generally this is the case.

What I like reading secondary sources for is to compare my interpretation with that of others. I'm not saying there aren't good reasons to read secondary sources, only that when it comes to interpreting this or that passage in Witt's writings it's easy to go down the wrong path. Of course, it's easy to go down the wrong path no matter what you do, which is why it's a fool's errand to think this or that interpretation is correct. No matter what you say there's going to be a few people who will disagree.

I like reading Witt to see where it leads me.

I think they are exactly that: normal propositions. They do not differ in their structure from any other proposition. Where they differ is in the place they take in the things we do with words. — Banno

Ya, that's one of the disagreements we have, among others, but that's philosophy.

The salient point I would make for you is that a game can only be played if some propositions are, not exempt from truth or falsity, but treated as being true. — Banno

I would say that what we are dealing with aren't propositions in the normal sense or Wittgenstein wouldn't have singled them out as hinge, bedrock, foundational, etc. I never thought they were exempt from truth or falsity. I said that generally hinges are not thought of as true or false. there are exceptions, and Wittgenstein gave examples of those exceptions.

"Treated as true" is an interesting phrase. How does this differ from normal propositions that we treat as true? Do we treat hinges as true, but they're not really true? Or, maybe we act as though they're true, like the rules of chess. "It's true that I have a hand" seems as odd as saying "I know I have a hand," again generally speaking because of the exceptions.

I've brought up the idea that there are pre-linguistic hinges (e.g. animal beliefs) that seem clearly to have no association with truth or falsity unless you bring in the linguistic concepts of true and false. This is also why I think there are different categories of hinges. It seems that this is implied in OC. It's "the deed" that comes first, i.e., how we act that shows the hinge.

I suspect saying that this or that belief is a hinge might mislead one into forgetting that the it is a hinge only within the games we play, the things we are doing - perhaps into thinking that it is a hinge always and in all circumstances. — Banno

I agree.

Much of what I've been doing is thinking out loud. So, my analysis is partly an exegesis, which is difficult because we don't know which parts of OC Witt would have left in or out of a final draft, and partly where I think his thoughts lead.

I think OC has something important to contribute to epistemology.

I don't have much more to say, so I'll end this here.

Happy Hunting.

:grin:

Of all the people I've engaged with over the years in this forum you're one of the few that remind me of a troll. I've been debating people in this forum long before you arrived. Whether you're right or wrong it's just the way you engage, it's so predictable.

I also think it worthy of note that "hinge belief" does not occur in OC. — Banno

All knowledge is about beliefs (unless we're talking about knowledge as a skill), and from the start of OC Witt talks about what Moore considers knowledge. Witt then goes on to explain that Moore's propositions, which are about what he believes to be the case (what he knows), have a special role. All the propositions, even those referred to as hinges, bedrock, foundational, etc., are about beliefs, which is why I refer to them as hinge beliefs. Indeed, Witt doesn't use that wording, but I think it's clear, at least in my mind, that hinge propositions (Moore's propositions) are about beliefs of a certain kind.

The difference between what some of you are doing in this thread and what I'm doing is that I'm trying to go beyond OC to where it might lead. For me, it's not always about getting the correct interpretation, because as you and I have mentioned many times these notes were never finished. We can argue endlessly over interpretations, which I find pointless (at least to some degree). What I think is important is getting a handle on Moore's propositions as endpoints (where justification ends) for epistemology.

Also, although Witt never talked about classifying hinges, I do think there are different kinds of hinges given a particular context or language game.

It seems that language games are only possible if we don’t question certain facts, and whether these facts are true or false. Here I’m referring to hinge propositions (or hinge beliefs). Moreover, I don’t believe that our grammar is conditioned by certain empirical facts. This is not to say that facts don’t play a role in our grammar, it just means that whatever the relationship is, it plays a lesser role. I say lesser role given the autonomous nature of language. There seems to be no doubt that there is some relationship between empirical facts and our grammar (Wittgensteinian grammar). Saying that facts condition our grammar, as per Moyal-Sharrock, seems to diminish the autonomous nature of grammar, especially since it’s grammar that determines what we mean by fact, object, and reality. So, our grammar presupposes these concepts, but it’s not independent of reality.

It seems clear that certain facts of reality, those that we don’t normally doubt, create the surface that allows language games to be played. Similar to a chess board providing the surface area for a chess game. So, the language game of asserting and denying, viz., being true or false rests on Wittgenstein’s hinge propositions (or hinge beliefs), and thus, any talk of epistemology (justification and truth) rests on hinges. Another way to say it is that our methodology of evaluating propositions rests on hinges.

Part of the problem concerns the conflation of hinge beliefs with our normal beliefs (or you could say hinge propositions with normal propositions), they are quite different and have different functions. So, the language game of epistemology is only possible if we never question certain facts. Just as playing a game of chess involves never questioning the rules of chess. The logical role of hinges is that of being beyond doubt and therefore beyond truth and falsity. To bring in the idea that hinge beliefs are true and false is to miss one of the core points of On Certainty. It’s like trying to shove a square peg into a round hole.

That's different.

My interpretation of OC comes closest to Danièle Moyal-Sharrock (University of Hertfordshire). I arrived at my interpretation quite independent of her or any other philosopher. My idea of pre-linguistic beliefs, which I've often compared with animal beliefs is similar to comments she made about the animal in OC (OC 359). I believe, as does she that Wittgenstein solves the infinite regress problem in epistemology, which is one of his contributions to the subject of epistemology. As she says, "it puts a logical stop to infinite regress."

"Wittgenstein's revolutionary insight in On Certainty is that what philosophers have
traditionally called 'basic beliefs' – those beliefs that all knowledge must ultimately be based
on – cannot, on pain of infinite regress, themselves be propositional beliefs. They are really
animal or unreflective ways of acting which, once formulated (e.g. by philosophers), look like
propositional beliefs. It is this misleading appearance that leads philosophers to believe that at
the foundation of thought is yet more thought. For, though they often resemble empirical
conclusions, basic certainties (or 'hinge certainties' or 'hinges' – as I shall also call them
following Wittgenstein's hinge metaphor [OC 341]) constitute the ungrounded,
nonpropositional underpinning of knowledge, not its object. In thus situating the foundation
of knowledge in nonreflective certainties that manifest themselves as ways of acting,
Wittgenstein has found the place where justification comes to an end, and solved the regress
problem of basic beliefs – and, in passing, shown the logical impossibility of radical or global
scepticism. I believe that this is a groundbreaking achievement for philosophy – worthy of
calling On Certainty Wittgenstein's 'third masterpiece' (The Animal in Epistemology:
Wittgenstein's Enactivist Solution to the Problem of Regress, by Daniele Moyal-Sharrock)."

What may count as good reasons for you may not be what others regard as good reasons. Once again: — Fooloso4

Well, I don't view good reasons as something subjective, as if it's just some decision I make arbitrarily.

336. But what men consider reasonable or unreasonable alters. At certain periods men find
reasonable what at other periods they found unreasonable. And vice-versa.
But is there no objective character here?
Very intelligent and well-educated people believe in the story of creation in the Bible, while others
hold it as proven false, and the grounds of the latter are well known to the former.

Unpacking this can be tedious, but I don't think there is any problem here. I'm not talking in absolute terms but in general terms. You seem to be pushing Witt into a more relativistic position, but I don't. There is a relativistic point to all this of course, but there is also an objective component, which is more important.

If I had to characterize “hinge proposition” I would say it is one where a human accepts it and its logical consequences as a whole. This acceptance would not be because it strikes us as true but that it has some pragmatic effect on us that when we put them into practice it brings value and meaning to our lives. — Richard B

I'm not sure that we have the same view on hinge beliefs. It depends on what you mean by "logical consequences" of a hinge belief. There is no doubt that hinge beliefs have consequences in our acts (linguistic and non-linguistic), and that there is a logical scaffolding to our belief systems. However, we have different views of hinges if you use "logical consequences" as a synonym for correct reasoning (inductive and deductive). Also, hinge beliefs don't depend on some practical effect. A practical effect would give some justification for the belief, which goes counter what a hinge belief is.

Some may have as part of their hinge beliefs that sacrificing a child will yield more crops. So, are hinge beliefs relative to some system of beliefs? Yes. But this doesn't mean we aren't capable of sorting out what I call "proper" hinge beliefs from "improper" ones. The question becomes, are there good reasons to reject or doubt what they consider a hinge belief? If there are good reasons to doubt, then it's not a hinge. The fact that we're constantly arguing over, belief in God, shows that at least some doubting is warranted, if not most or even all doubts are warranted. It's certainly not like doubting that there are objects that exist in space. I can't understand what a doubt about the existence of objects would even entail. However, I can and do understand doubting the existence of God; and even though my e.g. at the beginning of this paragraph is more extreme, the same point holds.

Not to those who are convinced otherwise. To doubt it would put everything, their whole system of beliefs, into doubt.

Is there any support in Wittgenstein for the notion of a "proper hinge"? — Fooloso4

Of course they're convinced, which is why they consider it a hinge.

One could argue based on some of Witt's remarks that there are hinges of different kinds and that what's considered a hinge at T1, might not be at T2. We acknowledge that hinges change and that some of these changes are more pronounced than others. Wittgenstein doesn't use some of my terminology, but that's because I'm trying to expand on Witt's ideas. I'm not saying that all of my remarks can be supported by passages in OC or anywhere else. My remarks are a combination of my conclusions based on passages in OC, and my expansion of his ideas whether they agree or not.

My view is that belief in God is not a hinge belief.
— Sam26

In an earlier post you said: — Fooloso4

For many religions, belief in God is a hinge.
— Sam26

I'm not saying that people don't use it as a hinge. I'm saying it's not a proper hinge. There could be some beliefs within any system, even ones that contain myths, that are viewed as hinges. What makes a belief a proper hinge is that it doesn't make sense to doubt it (what does making sense here mean?). Doubting that there is a God makes perfect sense. It's nothing like doubting there are objects, or hands, or minds, etc. People may act as though it's a hinge (belief in God), which shows they believe it's a hinge, that's all.

There seem to be certain core beliefs that most systems of belief recognize as hinge. In other words, there are overlapping systems of belief that contain the same core beliefs (hinges), but they also contain other beliefs, considered hinges, but not recognized as such within those other systems. So, you end up with systems with competing hinge beliefs. Sorting this out happens over time.

I would just repeat that a claim to know is not knowledge in the sense of definitely knowing the truth of some proposition but is rather merely belief. — Janus

I believe this is incorrect, and it's a misunderstanding of what it means to know. I assume your use of the phrase "definitely know the truth" means to know with 100% certainty. Most of what we claim to know is not known with absolute certainty. Most of what we claim to know is what's probably true or likely the case, and this follows from logic (inductive reasoning). I think your idea of knowledge is too restrictive.

Also, a strong inductive argument wouldn't be considered "mere belief," since it would have strong evidence to support it. A mere belief to me is a belief that's based on no evidence or very little evidence, like an opinion.

He does not agree with your claim that hinges are not epistemological because: — Fooloso4

I know that he doesn't agree, I've talked with him and listened to his lectures on Youtube. My point in bringing him up was that he talks about how a religious epistemology might try to use belief in God as a hinge, i.e., as an arational belief. My view is that belief in God is not a hinge belief.

I have followed his disagreements with other philosophers who hold a similar position to mine. So, I'm familiar with his interpretation of Wittgenstein and his view on hinges.

I read Pritchard's paper on Hinge Epistemology. The first thing to be noted, as can be seen in the title, is that he regards hinges as epistemological. — Fooloso4

I know that, what's your point?

I'm not sure what you mean.

What is the nature of a hinge belief? What if someone's world picture includes belief in God as a hinge belief? Or, what if another world picture excludes belief in God as part of their hinge beliefs? Can we just decide whether this or that belief is a hinge? And, if for example, belief in God is a hinge, then there is no need to justify the belief as true or false, since they're arational beliefs. Does Wittgenstein address this problem, or do we end up with conflicting hinge beliefs? Dr. Duncan Pritchard often mentions this in his papers and his lectures. I believe Wittgenstein does address this issue.

"I should like to say: Moore does not know what he asserts he knows, but it stands fast for him, as also for me; regarding it as absolutely solid is part of our method of doubt and enquiry (OC 151)."

It seems clear that Wittgenstein is not only saying Moore's use of know is a misuse, but also that it's not knowledge. The beliefs (arational and hinge beliefs) Moore claims to know are the bedrock, foundation, and solid "...part of our method of doubt and enquiry." It forms a whole system of beliefs that "...characterize the way [we] judge, characterize the nature of judgment (OC 149)." The "nature of judgment" includes our epistemological language games and our language games of doubting. This means that justification and truth are an outgrowth of what stands fast, which is why, generally speaking, hinge beliefs are not justified and not true or false. How can this be? There is no how or why it's simply how we act. "Why do I not satisfy myself that I have two feet when I want to get up from my chair? There is no why. I simply don't. This is how I act (OC 148)."

Does this mean that the system of our judgments doesn't change, of course not, it just means that at any given point in time, there is a system of judgment that we don't question. Some of the beliefs in the system will remain unchanged and some will be removed, and others added, but the system will always be there as part of our bedrock beliefs. That there is a system of judgment is unchanging, it can't be otherwise. There is a limit to reason, to justification and truth, and it's an arational system of beliefs.

Do I think Wittgenstein is correct? Absolutely, and it changes the nature of epistemology, and moreover, it shows the limits of epistemology. I believe many philosophers and thinkers have overlooked Wittgenstein's final remarks.

The most difficult part of Wittgenstein's epistemology is to understand the groundlessness of our epistemology. The whole system is predicated on arational beliefs, and this is what is so different about Wittgenstein's approach to knowing and doubting. I believe that if you don't see this, you're missing the core of what Wittgenstein is saying.

"Must I not begin to trust somewhere? That is to say: somewhere I must begin with not-doubting; and that is not, so to speak, hasting but excusable: it is part of judging (OC 150)."

"When Moore says he knows such and such, he is really enumerating a lot of empirical propositions which we affirm without special testing; propositions, that is, which have a peculiar logical role in the system of our empirical propositions (OC 136)."

The propositions Moore claims to know, viz., those listed in his paper A Defense of Common Sense are the propositions Wittgenstein is referring to. Besides the most commonly used of Moore's statements "I know this is a hand," others include, "There exists at present a living human body, which is my body," and (paraphrasing) "There are other human bodies of the same class that have lived on Earth and have had many different experiences." These are the propositions Wittgenstein is referring to as empirical propositions that we affirm without special testing. In other words, we don't normally need a justification (epistemologically) for these beliefs. These are hinge propositions (I prefer to call them hinge beliefs), and they fulfill the logical role of being bedrock, foundational, or basic to our whole system of epistemological language games. It's where justification ends (no special testing required). Why? Because special testing or justification gets its life from these hinge beliefs. Not only do these beliefs give life to our epistemological language games, but they also give life to the language games of doubting. Such beliefs also reflect an ungrounded way of acting, which is at the core of our world picture or inherited background.

And where it's proper to give a justification for Moore's propositions, i.e., the exceptions, then these propositions are not hinges. So, they can function as proper propositions in certain contexts, but not generally. As I've mentioned elsewhere, and where I've expanded on what I think follows from OC, is that these beliefs at their core are pre-linguistic beliefs, shown in our actions.

It's not only Moore's use of know that is problematic, but saying these hinge beliefs are generally true is also problematic in similar ways.

Yes, we do disagree. I don't think we are likely to change our opinions now, but we have both over time changed our understanding to some degree. So, I do think there is value in discussing and defending our take on things. In defending our views we go back to the text and sometimes we find something new. — Fooloso4

I'm not saying there's no value in discussing and defending these ideas because there is, and I know that others are reading as we write. The frustration is that people are constantly misinterpreting things, so I have to keep repeating myself. I think I'm being clear, but not so much apparently. I find it an agonizing process, but I can't stop. I stop for a bit, and then in a few months, I'm right back at it. It's a love-hate relationship.