You're right, the body doesn't survive consciousness. I think you have your words switched around. Don't you mean to say, consciousness doesn't survive the body? If that's your argument you've definitely convinced me. Of course you're in good company, because most of the arguments I get are of the same quality, or not much better.

Wow, you people are having so much fun, and you've made a lot of headway.

Excellent post on the verifiable and falsifiable.

You're welcome Banno.

I have recently been presented with Wittgenstein's statement-quote, "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world". I found it quite shallow. — Alkis Piskas

Given what you've written, I'm going to assume that you haven't really studied the Tractatus. To understand what Wittgenstein is saying in this quote, you have to understand what is going on in philosophy vis a vis Bertrand Russell and Gottlob Frege ("I will only mention that I am indebted to Frege's great works and to the writings of my friend Mr. Bertrand Russell for much of the stimulation of my thoughts (p.3 Preface to the Tractatus)); and you have to understand Wittgenstein's goal in the Tractatus. I'm not going to get into the philosophy of Russell and Frege, but I will say a few words about the Tractatus, and what Wittgenstein was trying to accomplish.

In the Preface to the Tractatus Wittgenstein clearly states that his goal is to draw a limit to the expression of thoughts, and since language is used to express our thoughts, it will only be in language that the limit can be drawn (p. 3 Preface). For Wittgenstein there is a definite logic to language. In fact, Wittgenstein's sees a one-to-one correspondence between propositions and facts in the world. Propositions describe the world, they are pictures of the world. So, the three main issues are logic, language, and the world, and Wittgenstein's analysis is an a priori analysis of these three ideas and how they connect.

So, Wittgenstein is caught up in the continuing problem of how thought and language connect to the world, i.e., how is it that we are able to say things about the world? His a priori investigation includes the idea that logic will reveal the structure of language and the structure of the world. There must be a logical connection that will reveal itself through analysis. His work extends "...from the foundations of logic to the nature of the world (Nb, p. 79)."

If as Wittgenstein believed, there is a one-to-one correspondence between what can be said about the world, and the facts of the world, then everything that can be said about the world, would give us a complete picture of the world. We would have completely described the world, given we have everything that can be said. So, if this is true, then the limits of our language, i.e., everything that can be stated about the world, would completely describe the limits of our (or my) world.

This hopefully, will give you a different way of thinking about the quote from Tractatus 5.62.

Also, your own understanding of the world is limited by your grasp of the propositions that really do line up with facts in the world. This, I believe, is why Wittgenstein believed it important to understand the logic of our language, which continued into his later philosophy. Although, his later philosophy is a much more expanded view of the logic of language.

Maybe this will help you to understand the quote a little better, and get you to read more about the history behind the Tractatus.

I definitely would rely on something like this to support the conclusion that consciousness is not a brain function, there are better arguments.

I came across something that at least suggests that consciousness is probably more than just a brain function. A man in France who lives a relatively normal healthy life with damage to 90% of his brain. Obviously this isn't conclusive evidence, but it's getting people to think that consciousness isn't just a brain function. I already believe there is strong evidence to support the conclusion that consciousness isn't just a biological function based on NDEs.

https://www.sciencealert.com/a-man-who-lives-without-90-of-his-brain-is-challenging-our-understanding-of-consciousness

I agree, although I'm not religious myself, but I do believe that we survive death based on other reasons.

Here's the definition of "cult" I think is the most applicable to this discussion - "A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister."

Clearly, the Catholic Church does not meet that definition. — T Clark

I think this is generally correct, the way the word is usually used is to refer to religious ideas that are not in the mainstream of a society or culture. However, people tend to use it to disparage any religious belief they disagree with, which doesn't seem to be in keeping with how the word should be used. One could argue about what is mainstream, so I suppose there is room to maneuver.

I was looking over this thread from a few years ago, now I drive a 2018 Toyota Camry, go figure. :smile:

There's also attempted Armacide. It's immoral from the intention to harm, but lacks the objective existence of it. Would this still qualify as a property and maintain an objective sense? — Cheshire

There's always going to be instances where it's difficult to see the harm. That said, we know the effects of certain actions, because we have seen the effects before. So, the intent to do harm, as in the example given, maintains it's objective component because we know what the outcome would be, viz., the blood, the screams, etc.

It's more difficult to see the harm of certain thoughts, especially if they're not connected with actions. It may take someone with an understanding of psychology, for example, to point out the objective harm of certain thoughts (thoughts that aren't connected to a particular overt act) because we lack the knowledge. Note that even here the psychologist may be familiar with the effects of these thoughts by observation. So, even in a case like this, there's going to be an objective component.

I firmly believe things are right or wrong apart from who does them. But, I can't account for how this could be; — Cheshire

If you're asking if there is something objective about an immoral act, I would say there is, viz., the harm done. So, for example, if I cut someone's arm off for no good reason, then I've committed an immoral act by definition. One can objectively see the harm done, viz., the arm severed from the body, the blood, the screams of pain, the pain of onlookers, etc., these objective components can be seen by any rational onlooker. The objective harm done in this example is clearly definable, and in most immoral acts the objective harm done is clearly observable. There are cases where the harm done is not so clear, and in those cases it may take more study to understand if harm has really be done, but it's clear to me that harm is a property of all immoral acts. This is not to say that whenever a harm is done that it's necessarily immoral, but only to say that all immoral acts have this property.

This only answers part of your question, but it's an important part.

This is one of the best NDEs I've heard.

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

Why not just deny the possibility of eternal oblivion by denying the existence of a continuous self, even within a single lifetime? That way you circumvent the need for evidence of reincarnation, and avoid all of the scepticism that the begging of evidence entails. — sime

Well, I go where the testimonial evidence leads even if I don't understand how or why certain experiences happen. There is much about these experiences that are mysterious, but if these are veridical experiences, which I believe they are, then if would obviously follow that we lack understanding of the mechanisms involved. It would be like trying to figure out a civilization that is thousands or millions of years ahead of us, much of what would be described would seem contradictory or impossible.

2. The beliefs that have no definite rational or inductive knowledge or ground. The beliefs that come from a private psychological state, which does not require evidence, justification or proof. Religious beliefs are in this category, and only in this case, the concept of faith should be applied to the beliefs. — Corvus

I'm just responding to some of what's in this quote, and expanding on it a bit.

What you're describing here is an opinion or an intuition, which by definition has no justification, or very little justification. I think it's true that psychology plays a large role in what everyone believes, i.e., everyone is affected by their experiences, culture, friends, etc, but the goal, at least for many, is to have a justification for what they believe beyond the subjective. Beliefs that are justified, are superior to beliefs that aren't justified. Moreover, justification comes from different sources, logic, sensory experience, testimony, linguistic justification, etc., so we shouldn't think that logic is the only way a belief should be justified.

For me, I find little evidence to support any religious worldview, which isn't to say that there aren't truths within these worldviews, but to say that these worldviews as a whole have serious flaws. For example, beliefs that damn half the world to hell, or beliefs in the resurrection, or beliefs that we should kill infidels, etc.

On the other hand, I find that the materialistic worldview to be about as close-minded and biased as you can get. In many cases they are unable to see beyond their myopic perspective, but this isn't just true of atheists, it's true of many people who have a passionate worldview.

As some of you know, my study of NDEs is centered around what we can know, so it's an epistemological study of the testimonial evidence.

Also, my conclusions are not coming from a religious point of view, especially since I'm not religious. I also don't believe that NDEs necessarily support the idea of a God, so I'm agnostic about that. It is true, however, that people who have had an NDE believe they've encountered religious beings (God, angels, Jesus, Muhammed, etc.), but I have found when comparing NDEs from around the world that one's culture affects how one interprets the beings they encounter. So, just as our everyday experiences are sifted through our worldview, the same is true of NDEs. I have found very little evidence that supports the idea of a particular religious God, which is not to say there isn't some supreme being, but only to point out that if there is, it's probably very different from how religion defines God. There does seem to be some source that we emanate from, i.e., some base consciousness.

In this thread my argument has centered around the conclusion that consciousness survives the death of the body. This means that consciousness is not a biological function, no more than a radio or TV is the source of the programs that you hear or see. The brain, for lack of a better analogy, acts as a receiver, and when the receiver is destroyed in some way, it no longer picks up the signal. The source of the signal is still there, but the receiver (the brain) is no longer able to receive that signal.

There are other conclusions that can be inferred based on the evidence, but I've tried to limit the scope of my conclusion to make it as simple as possible. Some of the other conclusion that can be inferred is that our loved ones have survived the death of the body (encountered deceased loved ones happens quite often in an NDE), that our home is not here, i.e., we originate from another place (metaphysical place), that there are specific reasons why we choose to experience this life, and that we choose many of our experiences prior to coming here. There is also the idea that we have experienced many lifetimes, but I don't like using the term reincarnation because of the religious baggage that comes with it. What seems clear to me is that if we do live out other lives there has to be a source that maintains the continuity of the self, otherwise it's difficult to make sense of the idea. I do believe there is a point from which the self operates, and from that point it can place itself into other realities. In a way, we do this already with games like WoW or Final Fantasy XIV, but in a very limited sense. I can play multiple characters in the game, but each character is still me, i.e., I can maintain the continuity of the self, even though I can act through different avatars.

For those of you interested in the study of NDEs, and related subjects, I've been invited to do a podcast next year. After the podcast is complete it will be uploaded to Youtube, and I will provide a link. I will be providing more information in the coming months. I don't have a firm date yet, but I've been assured an upcoming spot.

Growing Evidence of Life After Death

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0AvstZQl1o

Nothing fancy, just recording on my camera and editing with the software that comes with Windows 10.

There's obviously a lot more that can be said, but I'm calling it a day. I'm actually working on Youtube videos on this very subject, viz., NDEs. Whether I post to Youtube I'm not sure, but I am developing a script. In fact, I have the script for about three videos so far, and they're each about 15 minutes long, give or take. Once I develop a script for about four videos I'll start posting them, maybe.

The title for my video's will be - Near-Death Experiences and the Testimonial Evidence. There is a possibility that I could change the title, but that's what I have so far.

That's a very big "IF" there. You don't really expect these people to have an "open mind"? Obviously, they're basing their arguments on unexamined assumptions and unfounded hypotheses for the sake of being contradictory because they've got nothing better to do. — Apollodorus

There are some people here who have an open mind, and there are some people here who really do care about truth, even if they disagree. So, I wouldn't necessarily agree that people are just arguing because they have nothing better to do, or because their communists. I don't quite go as far as you. But one thing is for certain, convincing people, whatever side of the argument you're on, is a very difficult thing. As Banno would say, cheers.

The point is that the report of an embodied person does not stand as evidence of a disembodied person. — Fooloso4

I see, so the corroborated testimonial evidence while my heart is stopped and I'm no longer breathing, i.e., the testimony that I'm observing my operation from a point outside my body is not evidence. The fact, again corroborated, that I'm describing conversations and the equipment used in the operation is not evidence of being disembodied? Or, describing a conversation of relatives in a waiting room while the operation is being performed in another part of the hospital is not evidence of being disembodied? I'll refrain from saying what I really want to say. The point is that many people who are materialists, or who just deny that such events can happen refuse to open their eyes to the evidence. Firsthand testimonial evidence, is evidence, and whether its good evidence depends on factors I've already given in this thread and in my thread https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1980/evidence-of-consciousness-surviving-the-body/p1 . So, I wouldn't wouldn't put much stock in these kinds of statements.

It is not simply a matter of explaining how it is possible but of giving a coherent account of whatever it is that inhabits or is tied to a body but is somehow separate from it. Whatever it is that perceives and feels and yet is not a body. — Fooloso4

This just doesn't follow, i.e., because I can't explain how it is that people are able to have an OBE, then it follows that they aren't having an NDE. Of course I can't give a coherent account of how it's possible. Nobody understands the mechanism whereby these OBEs happen. Moreover, I haven't tried to give a coherent account other than speculation. This however, doesn't negate the fact that it's happening, i.e., people are experiencing corroborated OBEs. When people first conducted the 2 slit light experiment no one knew what was going on, and no one could give a coherent explanation of what was happening, but did that negate the evidence that something weird was happening? No. Did it negate further research? No.

If you have an open-mind and are not completely shut off from reason, then you have to say, at the very least that there is something to these NDEs. Here is an example of an NDE that can't be explained away with the arguments that disembodied existence just isn't possible, or that it's incoherent.

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

I'm not saying that mind or consciousness is necessarily biological, I'm saying that continuity must be preserved, biological or otherwise. It's the "otherwise" that we disagree about.

:grin:

Factual possibility is the only modal distinction that makes a difference regarding facts of the matter. — 180 Proof

Well, that depends, because if someone claims that something is not factually possible, as you seem to be claiming, then are you saying that it's logically impossible (viz., contradictory). If it's logically impossible like a four-sided triangle, then conceptually you can't even imagine it. Again, this seems to be what you're implying. But surely I can imagine things like dancing cartoons, which have no bodies other than what we imagine. Moreover, I'm able to conceptualize these kinds of things. We can even conceptualize dancing ghosts, and we know what we mean by dancing ghosts. You seem to want to say that if my dead father appeared before me, as a ghostly figure, yet recognizable, and he danced, that would have no conceptual meaning. Most people would understand what that meant whether they agreed that people really see dead people or not.

On the other hand, if we are referring to square circles, there is no conceptual framework that includes such a thing, unless you make it up. Under our current ideas of geometry there just isn't such a thing as a square circle, it's contradictory. But this isn't the same conceptual problem as disembodied dancing, because I can clearly imagine such a thing; and I can talk about it with some understanding of what it would mean.

As far as I or anyone is rigorously aware "NDEs" & "OBEs" are, at most, uncorroborated anecdotes. Idle speculation, like idle doubt, maybe passes the time like daydreaming but that's context-free diversion which neither presupposes commitments nor entails prospects. — 180 Proof

This just shows that you have really studied the issue. The testimonial evidence is not all just anecdotal. It has been corroborated in many many cases. There are objective means to verify what people claim to have seen while out of their bodies. Like interviewing doctors, nurses, hospice workers, etc, who can verify some of what these NDEers claim. The testimonial evidence for NDEs is extremely strong, and only those committed to a particular worldview seem to reject the evidence.

I love how people try to belittle the beliefs of other with whom they disagree. Using words like "idle speculation," or "daydreaming." Now to be honest, I've done my fair share of saying things to others that may belittle or otherwise dismiss them too, so I'm not complaining. I'm only pointing out that this is mostly done to make it look like your beliefs are somehow superior, and maybe in some cases they are. However, the only thing that counts are good arguments, not using words that dismiss others.

It is always an embodied person who has an alleged out of body experience. It is always an embodied person who related their experience. — Fooloso4

So, your conclusion is that because it's an embodied person who does the reporting, it follows that disembodied existence is not true or couldn't happen? Don't you think that's a rather weak argument? After all, how could an embodied person report on something I believe is not possible.

What does it mean to be disembodied? Who or what is it that is without a body? "You"? Is it not you who gets hungry? You who feels pain? You who feels loves and desires? What would such things be for a disembodied you? Is it not you but a body that somehow happens to be yours that experiences these things? — Fooloso4

To be disembodied simply means that we can exist as persons apart from a biological body. Just because someone can't answer all the questions of how it's possible, that doesn't negate all the testimonial evidence showing that it's possible. In fact, it's more than possible. I will state emphatically that it's not only possible that people can be disembodied, it happens all the time. There is just too much evidence that it happens to discount it.

Yes, it's me that gets hungry and feels pain, etc, and it would be me as a disembodied being who would feel some of the same things.

I can't discount reports like Pam's out of Atlanta, GA who underwent surgery for an aneurysm deep in her brain. While not only sedated, but the blood drained from her brain, and her heart stopped, she described what doctors and nurses said and did to her, including describing instruments they used. And, she described it from a position outside her body according to her. Moreover, her eyes were taped shut and there was a covering shielding her face from the rest of her body. Her description of the proceedings were verified or corroborated by doctors and nurses at the scene. Now one incident is not particularly convincing, but there are literally millions of accounts across the world of people having similar experiences. The testimonial evidence is just too vast to just discount these experiences.

"disembodied dancing" doesn't make conceptual sense — 180 Proof

Well, again, in this case, as in many other cases, what you believe makes conceptual sense is determined by your presuppositions, or your worldview. If it's true that people are having an OBE, and they are seeing deceased relatives and friends (as has been reported in thousands and thousands of accounts), then is it your contention that if one of these deceased relatives danced it wouldn't make conceptual sense? The only way it wouldn't make conceptual sense is if it's not logically possible to be disembodied. Don't you think that's a bit too dogmatic? Are you saying disembodied dancing has the same conceptual problem as a four-sided triangle? At the very least it would be metaphysically possible to dance as a disembodied person.

I know, and I was trying to be funny, but failed. lol

Actually I'm not kidding. :grin:

There are papers on the following site about reincarnation.

https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/category/academic-papers/

Ahhh, true. :ok:

Following Searle and others, mind is to brain as digestion is to gut. That looks pretty clear to me, if still debatable. Suppose that someone were to suggest that digestion could become disembodied. That the digestion from one body could move to another. Would you think this idea had conceptual issues? — Banno

I don't think Searle's analogy holds any water, to say the least. First, it's clear that digestion is a biological process, there's no debate amongst philosophers and scientists about that. However, it's not clear that consciousness or mind is strictly a biological process. Of course if you assume your conclusion, then yes, it's a biological process, how could it be otherwise (being facetious)? It only has conceptual issues if you assume your conclusion, viz., that consciousness is a product of biology. However, this is the debate, and I for one would argue against Searle's analogy as being specious at best.

There are two main factors, and obviously others too, that make us who we are, continuity of memory, and continuity of experience. There has to be continuity of the self in order for anyone to say that that is Banno. I can't make any sense out of reincarnation if this continuity isn't preserved. Otherwise, you could claim to be anyone from the past, and there would be no way to distinguish you from anyone else. This would be a genuine conceptual problem.

Can't right now, but will later. Take care.

Thanks for the response. I don't have much more to say.

There is very little evidence in this thread that reincarnation is a real possibility. I'm not saying there isn't any evidence, only that in this thread there isn't much in the way of evidence.

I would tackle the problem a bit differently. I would start with, is there any evidence of out-of-body experiences? Because the idea of reincarnation is dependent on whether or not it's possible that one's consciousness can exist apart from our present body. If it can exist apart from our bodies, then we have evidence that consciousness is more than brain activity. Thus, moving into other bodies (reincarnation) would be a real possibility, since we can move in and out of our present body.

Furthermore, I would still contend that even if we don't understand the mechanisms involved, we have a considerable amount of testimonial evidence that OBEs do indeed happen. It is also true that since the claim is rather fantastic to some, that you need an extraordinary amount of evidence to support the idea that disembodied existence is possible or highly probable. My contention, and I've made this claim in other threads (viz., Does Consciousness Survive the Body), is that there is an enormous amount of testimonial evidence to support the conclusion that consciousness does survive the body.

I often read, "There's no evidence," it's as if testimonial evidence, is not evidence. While it's true that testimonial evidence tends to be weak, it can also be strong under the right circumstances. What makes testimonial evidence strong is exactly what makes an inductive argument strong. What follows is a list of what makes the argument strong.

First, number, how many people are claiming to have had an out-of-body experience? Gallop did a poll years ago, and estimated that about 5% of the population had an NDE. Worldwide that's hundreds of millions of people. Now numbers aren't the be-all-and-end-all of inductive arguments, which is why you have to have more than just numbers.

Next, variety, viz., is it happening across cultures? Are there different age groups involved? Is the experience happening in a variety of circumstances? Has it happened through history? Is it happening to people with differing worldviews? The answer to all of the question is yes, it happens in a wide variety of situations and contexts, even to people who aren't near death.

Third, consistency of the testimony, the consistency of the testimony has been examined by many, and it has been found to be consistent. People are seeing basically the same things. Moreover, the consistency of the testimonial evidence is just as consistent as any testimonial evidence that involves large numbers of people. There have been many academic studies out of the University of Virginia detailing the consistency of the testimonial evidence. Here is a link to one such paper -

https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploads/sites/360/2020/11/Nov-2020-NDE-C-CC.pdf

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

Another aid in establishing the truth of the testimonial evidence are firsthand accounts, as opposed to hearsay. There are literally thousands of firsthand accounts being reported by the International Association of Near Death Studies (IANDS). Moreover, according to polling, there are millions of firsthand accounts of NDEs.

There are other points that can be made about what strengthens an inductive argument, but this is a good starting point.

The testimonial evidence, i.e., the various reports are all over the place, but IANDS is a good place to start.

I don't see how you get more compelling testimonial evidence, it's overwhelming. Do I need to know the mechanism for OBEs in order to know if NDEs are veridical? Do I need to know the mechanism of any experience to know if the experience is real or genuine? Of course not. We have firsthand experiences all the time without knowing the mechanisms involved.

There are a variety of academic papers on the following site dealing with the subjects of this thread.

https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/category/academic-papers/

Here's the question again: what is it that is reincarnated? — Banno

Before I respond, let me just say that because reincarnation carries a lot of religious baggage I don't like the term. However, that aside, I'll respond a bit to Banno's question.

First, even if the question can't be answered fully that doesn't mean there isn't evidence to support the idea that consciousness survives death, and may indeed be able to reside in other bodies. So, "...what is it that's reincarnated?" The answer is, your consciousness, viz., whatever it is that makes you, you, for example, your memories and your experiences. Do we know how that's possible? No. Do we know the mechanism? No. Do we understand any of the physics of such a process? It's doubtful.

Many investigations start out with unanswered questions, and many theories have unanswered questions, but that doesn't mean that there isn't evidence to support the theory. The question really is, is there any evidence to support the idea that consciousness survives the death of the body? The answer is emphatically yes. There is a ton of strong testimonial evidence, and there is some evidence to support the idea that consciousness can move out of a body, and back into another body, as a choice, i.e., we can choose to do it. If the testimonial evidence for NDEs is veridical (genuine objective experiences of reality), which I believe they are, then they, at the very least, demonstrate that our consciousness can move in and out of our body, and probably other bodies as well.

There are many unanswered questions about consciousness, but that doesn't mean that consciousness doesn't exist, or that consciousness isn't more than brain activity.

As I read it, the author isn't saying that grammar is completely independent of nature. He makes this clear in the first part of the paper. Moreover, I haven't decided yet if I'm in complete agreement or not. Grammar does seem to have an arbitrary aspect to it though.

The arbitrariness feature, an aspect of the autonomy of grammar,
does not mean that it is unimportant, capricious, or even discretionary;
it means, and this point is crucial, that it cannot be said that grammar
is correct or incorrect, right or wrong, by appealing to how things are
in reality (cf. [5]).

p. 80

So, if I understand this correctly, when using the concept fact (state of affairs), it's not what's in reality that determines how we use the word fact, rather, it's the grammar involved in language that determines it's correct use. So, our grammar is isolated from reality in an important sense, and that sense seems to be how we use language in a culture, and it's arbitrary features. There is nothing in reality that tells me how to use the word fact correctly. The arrangement of things in reality (the state of affairs) is not what determines the correct use of the concept fact.

In the same vein, Wittgenstein, in his Philosophical Investigations ([29], 1953, PI), claims that grammatical rules can be called arbitrary if that means that the purpose of grammar is the same as the purpose of language (cf. PI, §§372, 496, 497), and points out in Zettel (1967, Z) that cookery rules are not arbitrary because cookery is defined by its purpose, while grammar – or language – is not (cf.Z, §320). Thus, “[d]ifferent grammatical rules, unlike different cookery rules, are not right or wrong, but rather determine different concepts”([4, p.193]).3

p.80

It wouldn't be correct to say, it seems to me, that there is no correct or incorrect use of grammar, but that there is no correct or incorrect use as defined by something in reality. By comparison Wittgenstein points out "...that cookery rules are not arbitrary because cookery is defined by its purpose, while grammar - or language - is not (Z. 320)." So, the rules of bread making, for example, are correct or incorrect based on how the bread turns out, i.e., the outcome in reality determines the correct or incorrect recipe. It's in this sense that the recipe for bread making is not arbitrary. However, the rules of grammar are arbitrary, i.e., they are not dependent or determined by reality.

The question, at least for me is, how does this affect what Wittgenstein means by hinge-propositions? Is epistemology completely determined by the rules of grammar, or is it akin to cookery rules?

I'm working on another thread, analyzing On Certainty.

Many Christians believe that there is strong evidence to support the conclusion that Jesus rose physically from the dead. What do you think?