Must they be hallucinatory? I don't know. I never claimed that. Did you read our discussion and my points, or are you only taking a later post?
— Philosophim

Never? — Wayfarer

No, we're talking about hallucinatory as the more likely inductive possibility. You obviously did not read our full conversation over the life of this thread.

The point about Van Lommel and Ian Stephenson is simply to indicate that large data sets exist, that researches have wrestled with the question as to whether nde’s and past-life memories have any basis in reality. — Wayfarer

And my point, again, is that it is irrelevant, and a logical fallacy to site that these have any value without you having read them. Kind of like your criticisms of my conversation when you haven't read it in full either.

I could take the time to reproduce some of their examples for discussion, but I have a fair idea of what the response would be, so I’m not going to bother. — Wayfarer

We have this weird dichotomy Wayfarer. I keep taking the time to treat you like you're not an idiot, and you keep proving me wrong. You keep taking the time to treat me like I'm an idiot, and I keep proving you wrong. Is this ever going to change? Maybe realize some of your arguments aren't very good, and have a humble conversation?

I believe somewhere in that insecure mess of a brain of yours, is an actual intellectual who has curiosity, wonder at thinking about things, and the potential to both learn and contribute. But once again, when your points have been countered or shown to be faulty in an argument, you break down into this passive aggressive conversation style where I can practically see you sulking as you type the words out. If you got over yourself, you might be surprised at what you could do. Or at the very least, learn to quit before I have to call you out on your behavior.

Appealing to data in response to a claim is not a fallacy. — Wayfarer

You didn't post any data, only that some scientist had written a book. You appealing to that without indicating what the argument or evidence is, is the definition of the fallacy.

If you claim that near death experiences must be hallucinatory, then evidence to the contrary ought to be considered also, and Pim Van Lommel's books are a source of that evidence. — Wayfarer

Must they be hallucinatory? I don't know. I never claimed that. Did you read our discussion and my points, or are you only taking a later post? As for Lommel, again, you never posted any of his evidence or argumentation. For all I know, he's a quack. I'm not going to take time out of my day to read an entire book, as I'm not arguing for consciousness existing outside of the body. If he has good arguments, post them. If not, the reference is as good as me referencing Billy Bob Johnson's book on gator wraslin'. He might have some great points, or he could be missing some fingers and toes and his book is widely suggested to be avoided. Just because someone is a 'scientist' and has a 'book' does not mean anything they've written is worthwhile to consider.

but there is testimonial evidence - and what other kind could there be for this subject? — Wayfarer

The tests I've noted?

What I'm getting at, is not the belief that these experiences have no basis in reality, but why they can't have any basis in reality. — Wayfarer

I never said they couldn't. If you've been reading my discussion, you'll note that this has been a discussion of his lack of evidence and cogent arguments for NDEs being more than mere subjective experiences, and me providing counter arguments and evidence that more strongly indicate that NDEs are only subjective experiences, and fail objective tests in lab settings.

Let's discuss why they couldn't be, what would have to be the case for such experiences to be real. — Wayfarer

Feel free to read through our discussion and you should have everything I've provided. Quote and make some counter-arguments if you think you see any issues with what I've noted.

So, I disagree with your carte blanche dismissal of what Sam has been presenting. — Wayfarer

If you read our discussion in its entirety, I think you'll see why I disagree with him, the problems his arguments has, and why they are good arguments for his conclusion. If you have issues with any of those specifics, again, feel free to post them and we can discuss. Otherwise it seems you're making a judgement without fully understanding my arguments to Sam.

if you claim that all NDE's are 'merely hallucination' then the evidence of a cardiovascular doctor who has amassed considerable data to the contrary is salient, because you're writing as if there is no such evidence. — Wayfarer

No, that's an appeal to authority fallacy. Lets see what actual argument he gives and the evidence he provides for it.

The philosophical point is, what is the significance of such claims? If you believe they're hallucinatory, then they're not significant. But, your objections illustrate my point, as they're based on the conviction that it's all superstition and pseudo-science. — Wayfarer

Its not a conviction, its a conclusion based on the arguments and evidence presented. If you have specific arguments and evidence that would show that it is not superstition and/or pseudo-science, we can explore those. That is what separates superstition from meaningful ideas. Meaningful ideas can provide sound arguments and evidence for their existence, while superstition fail to provide anything more than a desire for wish fulfillment or, "But maybe" argument.

So, it’s not all just ‘wake up and smell the roses’. Worse things can happen. — Wayfarer

Agreed. My Aunt had a terrible NDE before she died. I've mentioned it to Sam in an earlier post. This happened during an operation they had to make on her to save her life prior to cancer eventually taking her.

what reason do I have to believe in the maintenance of the self as opposed to its constant creation and subsequent destruction and replacement by another self? — Lionino

You don't. But they aren't exclusive either. Prior to destruction, it is set in place that your replacement is similar to what comes before. Because every copy isn't exactly identical, over time there is more and more noticeable change. The idea is to preserve the parts of you that are good over time, and purge the parts of you that are bad over time.

PS: Even though it may be that I feel as though I am the same person as I were yesterday, that might simply be an illusion created by the neurological conditions of the body, which are the memories I/we hold. — Lionino

Correct. Its even worse then that. You're really just a ton of brain cells teaming up together to survive. Which is why we need an emphasis on things greater than ourselves. 'We' are extremely temporary. It is the preservation of continued existence of not only our selves, but others where possible which is paramount.

So, the sense in which I'm saying NDEs are real is that they are the same as the experience I'm having sitting here typing this response, viz., it's veridical. This is the disagreement. — Sam26

Right, we all get that. Where is your evidence that people's perceptions that they are real, means they are real? We've already given plenty of points to note that people have experiences in reality, and interpret them in a way that isn't veridical. They believe it to be a correct interpretation of reality, but its found it isn't. Remember the sun circling around the Earth? Feeling like things are real is not the same as it actually being real. Even if a lot of people feel that it is. That is an incredibly important point that you have not addressed, and must be addressed if you are to have an argument.

I don't know where you studied logic, but you are incorrect, i.e., the more variety you have in the cases studied, generally the stronger the conclusion. Maybe there are exceptions to this, but I think it's generally true for the type of argument I'm using. For example, let's say we have 10 witnesses of a car accident standing 30 feet away, and all the witnesses are standing roughly in the same spot. So, their observations are coming from the same general area. — Sam26

No, this is a consistency in experiences, not a variety. Perhaps you are using the wrong word or phrase here. What you seem to be implying is, "Consistency of results when repeated." So if we have 30 people witness the same thing, that would be a consistent outcome. If all 30 people had different results, variety, that would indicate more sound evidence that what was observed happened.

And again, we have a variety of NDEs. Some are positive, neutral, and horrifying. Only 5% of people have them, while most don't. When we look for a consistency of outcomes when testing its veridicalness, or if people subjective experience translates to objective reality, they fail. OBEs cannot observe things that they should be able to. Religious figures are based on what one beliefs in life instead of some objective religious figure or God they all experience.

The problem again, is you keep presenting information that definitely shows that NDEs are real subjective experiences, but does not have enough weight to argue that the interpretation of these subjective experiences match reality. What's worse, is you keep ignoring these points and reverting back to, "But NDEs are experienced," as your only go to here. This is immature thinking Sam. You can do better. You can simply say, "Yes, I guess there are competing compelling evidence that counters the idea that consciousness survives death. I don't have answers for them, but I'll think about it." And if you do have answers, bring them up to address the points. But if you have nothing more to say then, "But they experience NDE's", then this is not a philosophical conversation, but a person insistent in the rightness of their beliefs without a viable argument.

I don't know if Pim Van Lommel has been mentioned in this thread but he claims to have research that indicates that nde's can't be dismissed as mere hallucination. I'm not going into bat for that research, only noting that it does exist — Wayfarer

The link was just a link to their book. I can find at least one person in a professional setting who will go to bat for anything. The only thing that matters is the soundness of their evidence and the logic of their argument. My point in this thread is that Sam is not presenting a logical argument with sound reason. They are only presenting the fact that NDE's exist. Wayfarer, if you have the actual arguments and evidence, it might help Sam out in this thread a lot. I'm not against him, just his argument.

I think an interesting philosophical question to consider about this matter is, why the controversy? Not only is it controversial, but it provokes a great deal of hostility about 'pseudo-science' and 'superstitious nonsense'. As I said above, it's a taboo. I believe it's because it challenges the physicalist account of life, that living beings are purely or only physical in nature. If we believe that, then it's a closed question - and it's not necessarily a question we want to contemplate opening again. — Wayfarer

For me, this is not the case. I would love for there to be life after death. Only weird people who cut themselves in the dark while crying to death metal don't. :) But you learn as you grow that believing in things that you want but aren't true is childish at best, and dangerous at worst.

First, there is the danger of self-righteousness or excessive self-importance. The fantastic is exciting! Feeling like you've learned that a dragon is real can be an amazing feeling. Too amazing. You start to look down on other people who don't share it. You start to think "You get it, but they don't." And when you're holding onto an idea that's at its core a fantasy, you start to make other decisions in your life based on fantasy, and not reality. In general, such decisions don't end well for most people.

Second, and this can be heard from people who were deep in cults, belief in psychic powers etc...it makes you stupid. And no one wants to be stupid, especially smart people. Often times this underlying fear that one is wrong keeps people believing exciting fantasies long after they know in their hearts that its not true. It compels a person to subtly lie or disregard any evidence that would show them to be wrong. Thus, dishonestly and myopic vision sets in. People like this are often very easy to manipulate because once you start to justify believing the fantasy at any cost, people know your priorities and can get you to do things that a sane and honest mind would not do. My statement to them is that you're not dumb or dishonest for having bought into a fantasy. You're only dumb and dishonest if you stay with it when you know better. :)

Third, if you've been in such a pseudosystem before, you know the arguments and pattern of 'reasoning' already. And very rarely do people present knew arguments or rationals for the pseudosystem. Its not that I personally wouldn't love to hear new arguments. I would! I have no problem abandoning my old notions of reality if there is evidence of something better. But it needs to be more logically sound then my current notions.

Fourth, you can get caught up in the excitement of the fantastic as a rush, instead of looking at how exciting the mundane is. I know you're not a fan of everything being described in the physical Wayfarer, and maybe that's because its boring. I don't know. To me, I find it amazing that we're able to categorize and label almost all of objective existence into a category of measurable entities. I'm fascinated by the magic of chemistry. Of the fact that we can be wizards who ride around in giant death metal cages that run on the power of explosive liquid. When you see and understand reality, you can invent with it. You can improve with it. You can make magic with it.

Pseudoscience is always a dead end. You can't ever do anything with it but marvel at the idea of the idea. And once you get into a mindset that exciting lies and half truths are truth, regular reality can become dull and inconvenient. And that's a terrible thing. So its why, at least from my account, why I am against exciting and cool ideas that have no facts behind them, and need to pass certain evidential and logical bars of justification.

Well, we just disagree. — Sam26

It is more than that. Your claim is objectively not a strong inductive argument, and you have objectively failed to present a good and cogent argument worth considering. This is the philosophy boards, not the opinion boards.

I have a deck of cards containing one card - the jack of spades.

I draw one card. It is necessarily the jack of spades.

This is just induction. — Treatid

I'm scratching my head here TreatId. This is not induction. Induction is the belief that the next card which is drawn will be the jack of spades. The outcome of that draw has nothing to do with your induction. An induction understands, "My conclusion is not necessarily true from the premises."

Once the card is drawn, that is the known outcome. Whether your induction was correct or incorrect does not counter the fact that based on what you knew before the card was drawn, your belief may, or may not have been correct.

Here is an example of a deduction. We have a normal deck of 52 cards. All 51 cards have been drawn. The only card that hasn't been drawn is the jack of spades. Therefore we can deduce that necessarily, the final card has to be the jack of spades. There is no other viable outcome with what we know.

Lets say unknown to us, someone switched the final card out, and its actually a joker. Our deduction was still a deduction, because there was no other outcome we could have drawn based on the evidence we have.

It may be that you're confusing 'truth' with 'logic and knowledge'. Truth is, "What is". "What is" does not care about our opinions, reasonings, etc. It simply is. Deduction and inductions are ways we attempt to ascertain 'what is'. Deduction in general gives us our best chance of actually figuring out what is, while induction is always less certain and thus more likely to be wrong.

First, number. It seems rather obvious that if you have a greater number of testimonials that say something happened, then the stronger the argument. — Sam26

Again, no one, and I mean no one, is saying that NDE's aren't real. This is the part you seem to keep glossing over. If a bunch of people have a hallucination, no one doubts they have a hallucination. But the fact that multiple people have a hallucination is not an argument for that hallucination being real.

Second, variety. The greater the variety of cases cited the stronger the conclusion. — Sam26

No, this is evidence of a weak inductive argument, not a strong one. A strong inductive argument is based on whether reality easily contradicts its conclusions. A variety of NDE's do not strengthen the argument that a NDE is really happening. Reality tends to be consistent. Jumping out of a plane is consistent. If someone jumped out of a plane and started floating higher, something is going on that we're not aware of.

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 — Sam26

This is true. And its been mentioned repeatedly that the scope of your conclusions is too broad. Everyone accepts, "NDE's are real." There is not a good inductive conclusion for stating, "Therefore our consciousness actually leaves and returns to our bodies." Your scope is far too large, making this a weak inductive argument.

Fourth, truth of the premises. — Sam26

Of course. But again, the only truth that we all agree on is that we have NDEs. I've noted we can duplicate it with other experiences that aren't near death. I've noted that a person experiencing a NDE has never been able to describe an experience that was outside of their bodies senses, like a bright yellow duck that they didn't know was just behind them. Right there this destroys the idea that NDE's are actual out of body sensory experiences, as controlled settings demonstrate people are unable to prove they can sense things their body can't.

Fifth is cogency. — Sam26

And your argument is not cogent. The only thing you have is, "We have NDE's." That's means less than nothing. From that, we cannot conclude they are correct interpretations of reality, or memories of actively leaving the body when there is zero evidence of this actually happening in any study we've done.

Now lets go to your argument.

1. 5% of the population has had NDEs

Only viable conclusion: They had NDEs.
I agree they have NDEs. There is nothing more to be drawn from this point alone.

2.

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. — Sam26

Only viable conclusion: They had NDEs.
I agree they have NDEs. There is nothing more to be drawn from this point alone.

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. — Sam26

No, you have nothing that demonstrates this. We have NDEs. You have not demonstrated that the subjective experience of a NDE represents objective reality apart from their perception. Just like I can subjectively experience that the sun rotates around the Earth, the objective reality is the Earth rotates around the sun. I've already mentioned that scientific lab attempts to find any consistently odd reading, evidence of consciousness leaving the body, or OBE confirmations have all failed. Look into tests for psychic powers and other failed theories of science that have similar outcomes.

Another aid in establishing the truth of the testimonial evidence is firsthand accounts, as opposed to hearsay — Sam26

No one doubts people are having these experiences. Not me, or anyone else you've been discussing with. And yet you keep repeating it as if people having these experiences negates all the points we've mentioned about their subjective interpretations not matching with objective reality.

Another aid in establishing the truth of the testimonial evidence is firsthand accounts, as opposed to hearsay. — Sam26

Again, NDEs are real. You keep repeating this. We all know. We all agree. That doesn't mean they are viable evidence that consciousness leaves the body. You keep ignoring all the points we make about this and say, "But people experience NDE's!" We know. It does not logically lead to the conclusion that consciousness survives brain death.

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. — Sam26

Where? How? You don't give any evidence that NDE's objectively mean consciousness survives brain death. You only give evidence that people experience NDEs and we ALL agree with you on that. This is the repetition I'm talking about.

"OBE experiences in a lab settings cannot confirm actual sensing of what's in the room beyond a the person's immediate sensory fields, but that are clearly visible in the room."

Your rebuttal: "But NDE's happen to people!"

"We can duplicate NDE's without the brain being in a near death state."

Your rebuttal: "But NDE's happen to people!"

You have no crux of any argument that NDE's are any more than a common brain hallucination upon mild to moderate oxygen deprivation. You have no evidence that OBE's aren't more than piecing together what a person already sensed in the room prior to unconsciousness, or is processed by the unconscious sensing ears and eyes in between lucidity. All you have, is that we have NDE's. That is the only logical conclusion you can make. You have provided no evidence of any viable induction that consciousness can survive brain death. None. Repeating, "But we have NDE's!" is pointless. Please address the other points against why having a NDE does not mean consciousness has left the body, and you may have something. Until then, you just have a belief system with no viable evidence or argument.

My apologies for the delay! I'm back and settled. You speak well and seem to understand the notion, so I'll only comment on a few points.

I’m not dismissing the application on the social context, I am trying to point out that paradigms are, possibly, more fixed deductive filters that either sort and organize communication and knowledge, or distorts and disorganizes. 
An example would be to look at language itself. For some people, words can be ‘true’, whilst to others, words are always ‘relative’, in that you add in context, meaning etc. These two ‘groups’ will butt heads on many subjects, and will often feel they aren't 'speaking the same language'. A third would be the variant that not only sees the relative in written texts, but that also sees itself, the discrete experiencer, as part of various contexts, and therefore naturally adds in a self-understanding of itself in its understanding of others, a meta-self. 

To tie that together with the prior part about induction, each paradigm have certain parts of reality that, despite the continuous lack of applicable knowledge, continues to use the least probable way to gain more knowledge about that field, or when forced, reduces the findings to mesh with already known knowledge. Consistently. — Caerulea-Lawrence

Well stated. While the theory above does give us a stable foundation to build off of, once we start looking beyond that base the amount that ca be built is stories high. The interesting thing, is we can build several types of buildings. Some may fit certain situations better than others. And in society that's what we find. Different cultures and subcultures with their own emphasis on truth vs relative, subjective vs objective.

They key for me is that it is fine that we have these multiple scaffolds. The part we should be doing is to define what it means to build something, and why we should build it based on the situation. Just like you want a bendable building in an earthquake, you might want a knowledge structure that is flexible when exploring new ideas and themes.

There is no 'one right way', because we are not computers that have infinite time and energy to truly establish, "X is applicably known." What is right is knowing the guidelines themselves. Knowing what a floor, walls, and ceiling are. This will let us create or improve upon contexts of different peoples based on people's needs and desires with some type of foundational rules.

Whereas you here (third post) argue that the premise for using induction is ‘hitting a roadblock’, my argument is that the use of induction is reasonably fixed according to the given context/paradigm (further differentiated by culture, personality upbringing, genes etc.) and as such in any given paradigm there will be no further self-directed inquires into the lack of clear deductive beliefs. Within any given distinctive context there will be those that question it, but those are also the ones possibly changing paradigm, and seeing many things in a new light and gaining traction on the fields where there were a lack. — Caerulea-Lawrence

Correct. Your understanding of this and of people is impressive! Just like any person can fish, any person can think. But the person who understands the rules of fishing is going to do better overall in the long term than an amateur who fishes for fun. Of course, the amateur may not care to do more than fishing for fun, and there is nothing we can, or should do, to change this. It is up to the professionals to push the boundaries of and refine the established rules of the game. Some of that leaks down and is emulated by people who only dabble into it. So I think those who want to take knowledge seriously should have a solid foundation to work with. How they use it is up to them and the needs of the people involved.

However, the 'dominant' paradigm will have an influence on most things, and so 'science/technology, and some type of market-capitalism' is something most paradigms will have to deal with somehow. This isn't what I would consider 'being' on a paradigm, it is a more forced shift in behavior of outward appearance to avoid, or elicit, certain benefits/risks, not from an adherence and self-governed understanding of the underlying principles governing the structures, as well as general agreement with the underlying focus. — Caerulea-Lawrence

Correct. This is part of the context a person must consider when wishing to alter or impact other people's 'knowledge' sets.

Again, thanks for your replies and sincerity so far. This conversation does not fit the stereotypical experience of being on the internet, and I mean that in a very good way. — Caerulea-Lawrence

Agreed! Its great to talk with a like mind who's interested in this subject matter and thinks deeply about it like you do. Great points!

Sam, I'm reading your future posts to others after our discussion ended, and an observation is that you don't address the criticisms people are levying against your points, you're just repeating again and again that "These testimonies seem so real, so they must be real." That's just not an argument. That's a belief. We get you want it to be real. We can taste it through the screen. :) But its not an argument. You need to address so much more before anyone with good logical sense can buy into this.

I've been busy this week and out of town. I saw the responses and will reply when I return.

Could you go into more detail regarding the mechanisms of deduction? — Treatid

Certainly, there can be a lot of confusion around deduction vs induction as a context that often gets mistakenly applied to it is "truth". But deduction and induction have never meant to imply the truth of their conclusions. They imply the necessary logical outcome that results from a set of premises.

Before we get to matching memory, let me explain deduction and induction in their raw forms.

A conclusion has a set of what we call essential properties that define it. These are the properties that when fulfilled, we say, "This is 'that'". The number '2', is two one's grouped together. No other properties really matter. Whether the two things are candy, fruit, or cards, what is essential to the concept of '2', is the grouping of two ones.

1 + X = 2 If we solve for X, there is necessarily only one solution, X = 1. This is deduction in its simplest form.

I could also induce the solution. I could guess that X = 3. Of course if I added it, it would not be correct. And this is where the confusion about truth can come into play. We often say that x=1 is true, and in this case it is. But a deduction doesn't claim 1 is true, only that 1 is the only conclusion we can logically conclude.

In this case, our induction is wrong, but we could also induce X=1, without thinking about it at all. Again, X=1 is true, but it wasn't deduced, it was induced. Just as a deduction is not an assertion of truth or falsity of reality, an induction is not an assertion of truth or falsity of reality either.

Let me give a different example now to hammer this point home. In ancient times, many people deduced that the sun rotates around the Earth. One could have a person run around them as they stood still and see the phenomenon. What else could the conclusion be? And with those premises the only logical conclusion was that the sun must rotate around the Earth.

Of course, someone eventually added more premises to consider. What is the other person stood still and you spun slowly in place? Since we haven't risen into the sky ourselves, can we truly know if the rules are the same up there? These additional premises create a new logical problem that cannot deduce that the sun rotates around Earth. At that point, we don't have only one outcome, but potentially many.

If you remember the early part of the paper, I go over this phenomenon with a goat and a sheep. An individual has decided the essential properties of a sheep, and it turns out that all of those essential properties bleed into a goat. A sheep is an animal with curly hair and hooves. If the person does not recognize the different properties of a goat as essential, then they can deduce that a sheep and a goat are the same type of animal. They might do addendums like say, "A goat is a mountain sheep." Of course, other people could see the that some of the qualities of a goat are different enough from a sheep that it becomes an essential identifier, and a new concept is formed, "A goat".

Notice that there is no 'truth' as to where the form of the goat are the sheep represent some outside nebulous 'true' goat. There is only the distinctive knowledge of a defined goat or sheep, and premises that either necessarily lead to a conclusion, or premises that do not.

Since distinctive knowledge, or our ability to discretely experience and create identities can be whatever we want, induction and deduction do not have to apply to the creation of our terminology. I can create in my head the essential properties of a unicorn. I know it distinctively, but I have never applied it successfully to the world and deduced that any living creature matches the definition of a unicorn in my head.

But back to deduction and induction. Why use deduction over induction? Because of this scenario.

Lets say that my definitions accurately match reality fully. Nothing is contradicted by reality that is known and unknown. So lets us say that I have a quarter in my hand, and it is a quarter in reality. What method of thinking is most likely going to give me the knowledge that what I am holding is indeed a quarter? If the premises are all accurate to reality, and logic is simply a necessary consequence of what that means, then my deduction will be in line with the reality of the object being a quarter in my hand.

But what if I only induce its a quarter in my hand? The problem is, my conclusion that I can induce does not necessarily follow from the premises. I might induce its a spy object that looks like a quarter, even though the premises I have do not lead to that conclusion in any logical sense.

In short, deductions and inductions are tools. While both are dependent on the information that you have available to you, if the information available is complete enough that reality does not contradict it, the deduction will lead to the correct conclusion about reality every time, while the induction will not necessarily do so. Thus the most reasonable form of assessing reality is deduction, assuming our premises are not contradicted by reality.

So then, if we think on it further, we realize we need to deduce the hierarchy of inductions. We can't induce the hierarchy, because that means our conclusions don't necessarily follow from the premises. And if it the hierarchy is true, we can only have proper repeatable knowledge through deduction. Because deduction leads to the same result every time, where induction does not necessarily do so.

Thus, probability is a deduced induction. At its most basic, lets return to a world in which we have a goat and sheep defined, and the only essential difference between the two is the fact that goats have horns on their heads while sheep do not. You spy a curly haired animal that is walking away from you with its head down in a field. You see it has hooves. The only thing you can't see is its head. Because the only two possibilities from our premises is that it is either a sheep or a goat, we can deduce that we can induce that it is either a sheep or a goat. Thus the sentence, "I know it is either a sheep or a goat, and I choose to believe it is a goat."

And to clarify, we do not have other competing premises in this above situation. Like the initial deducers that concluded the sun rotated around the Earth, we have no other distinctive knowledge to compete. So no crazy ideas that its all an illusion, or a space monster, or anything else. Only that that to be a goat or a sheep is defined clearly as is, and there are no exceptions. As such, we deduce our limitations, and then can reasonably make an induction that it is either a goat or a sheep. This is why inductions rely on deductions and logic. A proper induction is a deduced set of limitations that allow us to make a guess within a more reasonable and limited range then pure random and wild beliefs.

Thus when I induce 1+X = 2 and X = 3, I'm pulling from the limited possibility that it must be a number. I'm not guess X = "Dennis" for example. :) I could guess this of course, but most people would think I was joking at best, irrational at worst.

I didn't get into memory per say, but if you understand the above, it should make the topic of memory more clear. After you think about what's said here and want to go into memory, feel free to post your thoughts and I'll cover that next if needed.

The idea that we need to confirm our subjective experiences in controlled settings or they're not veridical is ridiculous on its face. — Sam26

That's not what I said. Maybe it is true that David Copperfield really levitated that day. Its a given that what we subjectively experience may, or may not be true. Its about whether we have the proper evidence to claim that our interpretation of that subjective experience is in alignment with what really happened. Given that we can duplicate and test NDEs, it is only reasonable that we test and use those findings to figure out what is going on in reality when people have these experiences.

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. — Sam26

We have billions of people that look into the sky and see that the Sun travels around the Earth. The Sun rises in the East, and sets in the West. No one is saying we don't have that unified and confirmed subjective experience. But is our interpretation of that subjective experience true? No. It turns out that the Earth actually orbits the sun. But from our limited perspectives, and can feel like its the other way around.

Your problem is one of epistemology. I encourage you to open up your field of study into it if it was not your original focus. That was my field of study when I got my degrees years ago. I have my own take on epistemology here if you're interested. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1

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. — Sam26

No, there has been subjective testimony in an uncontrolled setting. Objectively, that testimony has occurred. That does not mean that the perception of what happened means that what they interpreted was objectively real. For example, in the cases in which patients have claimed to see or hear things that sound like they are in the room in uncontrolled settings, it is unknown at what time they had those experiences. If a person is going into anesthesia or coming out of it, consciousness can return at points that are not fully registered to the disoriented individual. But I have already gone over these tests, so will not repeat myself.

A further case in point: Psychics.

I can gather tons of testimonial evidence that certain people have psychic powers. They're able to repeat them in front of people repeatedly, and people would swear they have powers. Much like magicians. But, take any psychic and put them in a controlled lab setting, and you find they're frauds. I'm not saying they didn't objectively have these experiences, same with people who have NDEs and OBEs. Its whether what they are subjectively interpreting matches with objective reality, "I actually left my body and truly observed the room as it is" that needs to be confirmed and has not.

I don't need peer-reviewed studies to understand that there is objective corroboration. — Sam26

You do not need peer reviewed studies to determine objective corroboration with seeing psychics or magicians either. Observation from many subjects in an uncontrolled and tested setting has never been enough evidence to determine any objective conclusions as to whether their perception of the situation matches with objective reality.

Again, you keep making the wrong logical leap. You think that because many people say something in an uncontrolled setting, that their perceptions and beliefs about what happened match objective reality. That could not be further from the truth. At best, you have a situation that generates a hypothesis that needs to be tested. And in every testing case that I am aware of with OBE, it has been found that the person's subjective experience does not conform with objective reality. your argument is the equivalent of a crowd at a David Copperfield performance swearing that he objectively levitated off the ground because that's what everyone saw.

Either you are dodging my point, or you are simply do not understand it. As a person with a background in philosophy, it should be crystal clear to you by now. If you do not provide any evidence that these subjective interpretations of reality have been confirmed as objective realities in controlled settings, then your argument has failed as an assertion. It is a hypothesis, no more, and cannot stand against other the contrary hypothesis that has been confirmed as of this day: "Consciousness does not survive death".

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. — Sam26

We have to prove this every time we make an argument. The proof is in the argument, not our past accomplishments.

Most of our reasoning, including science, is inductive. — Sam26

Very true. But you have to give an inductive argument that rises to the level of scientific consideration. I can inductively believe the moon has little men living inside of it, but its not rigorous or cogent enough to be given serious consideration. Good inductive arguments base as much of their argument on deduction as possible, and only go to induction when it is the only choice. This is different from a hypotheses, which is a claim that has not been tested yet.

You can claim, "Consciousness exists beyond death," as a hypotheses, but then it has to be actually tested and confirmed at least once. This confirmation must be rigorous, and once again, involve as much logic and deduction as possible. You claims pass a hypothesis, but I have not seen any confirmation of your claims. Currently the hypothesis, "Our consciousness does not survive death," has been confirmed in applicable tests. You'll need to show me actual tests that passed peer review, and can be repeated that show our consciousness exists beyond death. To my mind, there are none, but I am open to read if you cite one.

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. — Sam26

Certainly, I speak to everyone as if they are a layman until they show me otherwise. Most people do not need the technical context of the word in logic. 'Sound' to the layman is often understood as 'An argument confirmed to be correct'. I've reiterated my point above demonstrating that your inductive argument is at best a hypothesis that has not passed the rigorous testing needed to counter the current conclusion in science that consciousness does not survive death.

For someone to say, “You strike me as a thinker in earlier stages of development,” is laughable given these comments on logic. — Sam26

Knowledge of vocabulary in expert contexts has nothing to do with thinking. Thinking is the strength of our arguments when both sides are on the same contextual vocabulary. I do not see how your arguments have met the criterion I've noted above to be considered more than an unconfirmed hypothesis.

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. — Sam26

Of course being able to duplicate NDEs does not mean they are not real. But it also doesn't demonstrate that they are real apart from subjective experience. Being able to duplicate NDEs means

1. We can set up situations to test NDEs.
2. We can monitor the brain and observe how 'dead' it is.

In the tests that I am aware of, no one has ever been able to observe anything in the room outside of their vision, or confirm outside noises that cannot penetrate the room during the specified time frame. That's a huge blow to the idea that NDE's are more than simply subjective experiences like dreams.

Further, NDE's can be duplicated merely under brain 'stress' in which the brain is still very much alive and active. How can one have a consciousness that both leaves the brain and is in the brain at the same time? I suppose if there was a particular location of the brain that contained consciousness, we could coodinate the reported time of an OBE by what was happening in the room and find a particular brain region that goes dim so we can say, "That's the location consciousness resides". To my knowledge, that hasn't happened yet either.

Another point is that visual and auditory imaging is processed through the brain and the senses. If consciousness left your brain, how is it seeing or hearing? Even if it could receive light or detect the vibrations in the air, wouldn't the perception be different from a brain if you're not getting the information from a brain? The fact that its as a brain would imagine, and the fact that its OBEs have not picked up a confirmed sight or noise outside of visual or auditory range, leads much more tot he idea that an OBE is not actually happening outside of a subjective brain experience.

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. — Sam26

Cite a scientific article that has been peer reviewed, proper control and variable setup, and has been repeated with the same success elsewhere and you have a point. Don't be baffled. Just point out the studies.

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. — Sam26

If this is in a non-scientific setting, its useful as a means to explore a hypothesis, but nothing more. Cite a reputable article in a controlled setting and you'll have something.

One example of corroboration is given in Pam's NDE out of Atlanta, GA — Sam26

I responded to this a few posts back with an article that demonstrated why the claims were not enough to confirm an actual OBE. Feel free to refute them, no statute of limitations here! :)

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. — Sam26

Again, all this proves is a subjective consistency in some people, while as you've noticed in The Near Death experience paper you cited, there are many people who also do not have, or have very different NDE experiences. Only about half have OBEs, while the majority have variations of pleasant feelings. Considering OBEs have not been show to be objectively real, the majority having pleasant feelings when under oxygen deprivation or other slowed brain activity is hardly a slam dunk argument that consciousness is surviving outside of the brain.

Again, everything except Pam that you have cited is evidence of a shared subjective experience people have, NOT an objective confirmation that consciousness is actually leaving the brain, making observations, then returning to the brain after. Pam is again, a great example of something which lends to a hypothesis. But testing is where objectivity is determined. And unless you can give such testing, your argument that consciousness survives outside of the brain as an objective reality has no real evidence.

I think at its most basic, justification is simply, "An answer to why I make my choice/conclusion".

Justification can be deductive or inductive. In general, I favor justifications that rely on as much deductive reasoning as possible, and where that fails, probability and possibilities for types of inductions. Generally justification that relies on pluasibilities, or "Things we can imagine as being possible, but we have not actually confirmed that they are possible" is not good enough.

For example: Consciousness lives on after we die. There is no fact or possibility (that it has been confirmed to have happened at least one time) but only plausibility. We imagine its possible, but we haven't actually confirmed that it is. This is not a good enough justification to believe the claim, therefore rationally we should not agree with it.

What is the definition of a universal that you're using?

I wouldn't call this a riddle. This is a logic problem. They can be pretty fun to do, but there are countless online. https://www.brainzilla.com/logic/logic-grid/ if you want to join up and play a bunch.

The more I interact with your ideas, the more familiar and relatable they become. — Treatid

That is a very nice compliment and I am humbled to see it. You have a keen and curious mind, and you've given me plenty to think on as well.

A hill climbing algorithm can get stuck at a local maxima and never find the global maxima. — Treatid

Yes. I've thought about this a long time ago but never had anyone bring this aspect up before. That is because we create perfectly logical systems. What a perfectly logical system lacks is induction, and a variety of approaches towards the same problem. Since I thought of this, machine learning has introduced 'induction' and imperfect data into systems, and we have largely escaped the issue you note.

Here's a fun video on machine learning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu56xVlZ40M

But lets talk at the level of the theory as well. If you recall I labeled four classifications of induction, probability, possibility, plausibility, and irrational. As a quick reminder

Probability-Predicted outcomes based on know limitations. A coin has 50/50 chance of one side on flip.
Possibility- What has happened once is believed to be able to happen again.
Plausibility-A pure untested imagined scenario then is not immediately contradicted by what we know. Maybe aliens exist a billion light years away.
Irrational - A belief that what is applicably known is wrong. 1+1=2, but I believe its really 3.

While plausibility and irrational beliefs are looked down upon in established systems, they are invaluable in discovering new systems of thought.

Plausibility is fairly obvious, as its essentially imagination and hypothesis. But irrationality is also incredibly useful in some circumstances. To break out of local maximum, sometimes you have to do something against the grain that everyone thinks is impossible.

In the life of a human, I can think of at least one example where irrational beliefs are useful. There may be times when one can no longer come up with plausible explorations. But an irrational exploration is essentially poking at the already establish system. Its a stress test of sorts. It can find holes in logic no one realized. You can't have the majority of your population being irrational, but having a few is useful.

And this leads to the next part that you may find more interesting. How a society tackles induction.

In general we have one algorithm run a program, and alter it slightly. It evolves from its previous data, and seeks a solution to it. But after a point it eliminates other explorations. What if we had multiple ai's running separately and tweaked the amount of 'inductive' decisions they made?

For example

AI 1: 100% logical decisions
AI 2: 98% logical, 1% probable decisions, 1% possible decisions.
AI 3: 96% logical, 1% probable, 1% possible, 1% irrational decisions.

It would be interesting to see where each AI ended up. Especially if we duplicated this experiment millions of times with the same AIs, and even different variations.

I view humanity as a whole as the biological variant of this experiment. We have potentially millions of humans looking at a problem with different levels of emphasis on deduction vs induction. The difference is we have more of an emphasis on the induction part then the logical decisions. That's because human intelligence is optimized for efficiency, and pure logical and verified deductive thought takes the most time out of all approaches.

So where do I fall? The reality is that we have a propensity to favor inductions, and at the lower end of the hierarchy in a lot of our thinking. We are emotional beings with bias, and our nature is to rationalize what gives us what we want while tending to disregard that which does not.

https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/when-it-comes-politics-youre-not-rational-you-think
“What we find is both sides are equally biased in their own direction,” Ditto said.

People are savvy at spotting bias in other people’s arguments, but they consistently fail to recognize bias in themselves."

As such, I try to use the hierarchy myself. I first favor strong facts and conclusions. Probabilities and possibilities are strong contenders. I try to avoid plausibilities as conclusions, only as possible avenues of exploration. And I constantly question if I'm wrong. Typically when I come up with an idea, I explore it, but then I try to disprove it myself. It wasn't easy at first, and it can still be tough when you have an idea you really like, but that habit is invaluable to cultivate. I work on not sinking into the trap of arrogance or hubris, and keep myself grounded that I am no better than any other human being. I try to listen to anyone no matter how new or inexperienced they might seem as insight can be found anywhere. As you noted, we all have a propensity for a local maximum, and it can be anyone who can break us out of it.

That being said, I'm still human. No matter how brilliant any human is, their intelligence was designed in the petri dish of evolution, not for optimal conclusive thinking. This is why I believe AI can be the next advancement of the human race. If we can get over our own biases, we can have something think inefficiently with massive amounts of electricity that can work at a logical level we can only dream of.

Anyway, a bit of my thoughts. Let me know what you think.

I mean we all have places we come from and thoughts we start at, but if you walk into the chemistry department and start talking alchemy someone might correct you. — Moliere

This is not a forum exclusive to collegiates, this is a general public forum. I have no issue with being corrected or told new things. While he may have responded well to you, he jumped into a conversation I was having with another poster without context, and when I asked him to clarify his issue he came across as dismissive. I encourage you not to do the same and jump into another conversation between two people.

We did have a conversation earlier though right? You asked my take on the barbershop paradox, and asked my clarification on what I meant by this being a language issue. Did you have any follow up on that?

If the long reply made you feel better, that's fine. You can't argue against how you come across to other people on a forum. Hopefully we'll have a better encounter in another thread. Good luck in explaining your side, I do agree with it.

For what its worth, I think you're running into a mismatch between most people's general sense of seeing -> as a strict conditional. Perhaps in your field or life 'material conditional' is a common phrase, but for most people who use logic, this is never introduced. For them, its almost always seen as a strict conditional. Remember that this forum is populated by all types of people, and most of them are not logicians or philosophers themselves. Explaining and contrasting a strict conditional vs a material conditional should make the issue clear for most people.

I gave you the best advice anyone could ever give you regarding this subject: Look at a textbook. — TonesInDeepFreeze

You do me or no one else favors here. We're having a discussion, and if you want to make a point, link or note your point. "Look at a textbook" is dismissive and means you're removing yourself from the conversation.

Your attitude is hostile and condescending
— Philosophim

Actually, you insulted me. I hadn't written anything "hostile" or "condescending" but then insultingly you wrote:

Don't be a troll.
— Philosophim — TonesInDeepFreeze

Like this?

Then give your proof.
— Leontiskos

Are you serious? You don't know how to prove it yourself? — TonesInDeepFreeze

Not exactly the model of a sage and wise poster. You came on here with a chip on your shoulder to everyone. I gave you a chance to have a good conversation, but I didn't see a change in your attitude.

You misunderstand. You said that '->' means 'necessarily leads to'. And that is false. — TonesInDeepFreeze

If I'm clearly using it as a strict conditional, as I noted in prior posts as I was talking to someone other than yourself, then I'm correct. Now if you had an issue with my use of -> or wanted to teach me the difference between a modal and material implication, something I did not know before today, you could have spent less then a minute citing a wiki post somewhere like Banno did. Instead, we have wasted time back and forth and your attitude didn't win you respect today.

This is not a place where we should banter back and forth for our egos. Its about spreading knowledge and wisdom with one another with good discussions. You seem to have knowledge, which is wonderful. Share it and teach. You'll earn respect. Don't bare it and preach. You'll get eyes rolled at you.

↪Philosophim Wiki might suffice to show you the difference between material implication and strict implication. That might be what you have in mind.

Tones is correct. — Banno

If he is using the term of implication to mean, "could lead to", then that's fine. I've already written on that on the first page. I did not catch that 'material' conditional was anything different from the modal operator.

It is not trolling to point out an incorrect statement, and it not trolling nor handwaving to suggest that one can look in textbooks to see that the statement is incorrect. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Your attitude is hostile and condescending without backing up your claim clearly. I had no idea that there was a specific logical term called a material conditional. You spoke so tersely and dismissively, I didn't take your reply seriously. Give detail and respect, and it will be given back by good people.

I will state again, you misunderstood what I was stating earlier. I'm replying to someone specifically in which I covered both types of meanings of the words 'imply', as the OP did not specify what they meant. One where "Imply" means "necessary" and one where imply means "Could lead to".

I already noted in the second case that A could lead to B and A could lead to not B are not contradictions. But they are contradictions in the sense of using the word 'implication' as necessary. Or to use Banno's link if we are going to use formal logical terminology, 'material conditional' vs a 'modal operator'.

↪Philosophim

Look in any textbook on symbolic logic. — TonesInDeepFreeze

If you're not going to bother answering like I did, I'm going to hand wave you away. Don't be a troll. Show it.

So what?

'->' is ordinarily regarded as standing for material implication that does not require necessity. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Please demonstrate your claim.

https://people.cs.rutgers.edu/~elgammal/classes/cs205/implication.pdf

"Different forms for implications
p implies q is equivalent to
If p then q
q if p
q whenever p
q when p
q follows from p
p is sufficient for q
a sufficient condition for q is p
q is necessary for p
a necessary condition for p is q"

A -> B. But that's not imply. that's "Necessarily leads to."
— Philosophim

Wrong. Material implication does not require necessity. — TonesInDeepFreeze

You misunderstand. A -> B is not implication as we may use it in English. In other words, "It being cloudy implies that it will rain soon," is not the same as "It being cloudy necessarily means that it will rain soon. Yes, in logic, its called an "implication", but in standard English its equivalent to "Necessitates". That notation is If A, then B. Or if A, necessarily B. Its not, If A, maybe B.

Thus, if one plugs the word 'necessitate' in, its clear that A necessitates B and A necessitates not B contradict each other.

What I see some people doing is declaring A -> A or B, which is perfectly fine. But that is not the same as stating A -> B, (which means it will only lead to B) then in the next statement A -> !B (A will lead only to not B).

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. — Sam26

I did not mean it to be condescending. I am a person who has learned over time that you can never assume anything about other people. So I talk to them as if they don't know things, not as a means to insult, but to provide opportunity in case they don't. I am glad you understand how valuable life is. :)

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. — Sam26

Some people think this. Not all. When having a conversation with a stranger, to me its about trying to find the most value out of a conversation. If I know you know the value of life, then I will never mention it again. But if you don't and its not addressed? What good is it to inform a person that there is no afterlife if they don't value the life they live today?

We do not have tone or body language while communicating. All we have is text, and of course our interpretation of that other person's intentions. I have tried to be clear that while I do not believe the argument for consciousness existing post death has any credence, I do not have any issue with YOU.
You've taken the time to present an argument fairly, you've been polite for a conversation that conflicts with our world view, and you've replied to many of my points. These forums should never be an insult or ego fest, but a place where we can talk seriously and truthfully with one another.

The psychological reasons/causes for what we all believe are very strong, often overriding what’s logical. — Sam26

Correct. And I am not an exception to this rule. I too was raised Christian, but through questioning and having honest conversations with many other people, I found that it wasn't viable.

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. — Sam26

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. — Sam26

I have formal training in philosophy, I have written many of my own approaches to philosophical problems, and have continued to dabble as a hobby all my life. I was both a math teacher, and now program for a living. My point is that I have a long period of training in life in logical thinking.

Now, I also am aware that it doesn't mean a thing. Its the arguments that stand. 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.

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.

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.

That's pretty obvious if you take any other scenario besides NDEs. I've dreamt that I've flown before, and its been found in at least one study that 1/3rd of recipients have dreamed of flying. https://slate.com/human-interest/2016/11/dream-flying-says-something-about-how-you-think.html

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.

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.

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.

So, feel free to try to answer those. If you can, awesome. But not answering those and insisting your inductive argument trumps all others logically isn't true. The current and most logical conclusion we can make with the information we know of today is that consciousness is a function of the brain, and when the brain dies, your consciousness dies as well. Feel free to keep trying to prove it wrong, but you have a lot of work to still do.

↪Philosophim What does "simply a language issue" mean? — Moliere

Often times in logic or arguments, the solution is clear. What often happens is we use language with poor definitions. Thus people make assumptions or conclusions that the user of the unclear language didn't intend, or the user themself is doing the same.

Notice how he used the word 'imply' and people immediately thought, Oh A -> B. But that's not imply. that's "Necessarily leads to." And its obvious that if A -> B, that A -> !B is a contradiction if you use the correct definition. "Imply" is vague enough that some thought 'necessarily', while others thought 'maybe'. And because you can get halfway there with the word, some might even thing A ->B means only sometimes.

I think, at least in philosophy though maybe there's some other argument this stems from that I'm not aware of, that we should separate out implication from modality -- so when you introduce "possibility" and "necessity" those are entirely different operators from implication. — Moliere

This is simply a language issue. What does 'impliciation' mean? That's why I went over all the different possibilities. In the end implication must mean necessary or not necessary, in which case the answer will be different.

↪Philosophim What do you think of this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbershop_paradox — flannel jesus

It was a bit of headox with a sentence like this:

"If Carr is out, then we know this: "If Allen is out, then Brown is in", because there has to be someone in "to mind the shop." Ugh.

So cleaning this up we get this:

They explain that there are three barbers who live and work in the shop—Allen, Brown, and Carr—and some or all of them may be in. We are given two pieces of information from which to draw conclusions. Firstly, the shop is definitely open, so at least one of the barbers must be in. Secondly, Allen is said to be very nervous, so that he never leaves the shop unless Brown goes with him.

So, we have A, B, and C

One must always be in.

If A is out, B is out
Therefore C is in

If B is out, A can be in, as B can leave the shop.
If A is out, B is also out, so C is in

So our combos are as follows:

1. C !A !B
2. !C A B
3. C A !B
4. !C A !B
5. C A B

"Suppose that Carr is out. We will show that this assumption produces a contradiction. If Carr is out, then we know this: "If Allen is out, then Brown is in", because there has to be someone in "to mind the shop." But, we also know that whenever Allen goes out he takes Brown with him, so as a general rule, "If Allen is out, then Brown is out". The two statements we have arrived at are incompatible, because if Allen is out then Brown cannot be both In (according to one) and Out (according to the other). There is a contradiction. So we must abandon our hypothesis that Carr is Out, and conclude that Carr must be in."

This doesn't make any sense. Clearly B can be out and A be in. Clearly C could be out and A and B, or A be in. I don't get it.

We have to be careful by what is meant by 'implies' In logic, the word, necessarily is used more often in these examples. "Necessarily leads to B" So if you have A -> B and A -> !B, that is a contradiction.

Now, if you want to use English instead of logic, we can also examine that.

Lets use the word 'implies" which for many means, "could" or "not necessarily".

In which case A could, or could not lead to B. In other words, you're describing an induction. We cannot use A -> B here either, as that's not what it means. Once we had the result of the induction, there are two results we can conclude.

A always leads to (outcome) or
A sometimes leads to (outcome)

This can be determined through testing. For example, if I flip a coin, it sometimes comes out heads, and sometimes comes out tails. This can be written in logic as "Some A's lead to Bs, and some A's lead to not B's"

If of course The question was whether a coin always spins when flipped, we would see it would flip every time. In this case after the test it would be A -> B.

Does that answer your question?

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. — Sam26

This is very important. Actual recorded death is not near death. Near death experiences cannot be used as an example for consciousness existing outside of the brain, as the brain would still be alive.

It’s the experience itself, the claim that people have had an OBE, and their experiences while having an OBE. This is the central point of my argument. It’s what people see during their NDE that supports their belief that they had an OBE — Sam26

I am not questioning that people have an out of body experience. The question is whether this out of body experience can be pinpointed at happening at the exact time of brain death, and that it is not merely a vivid dream of consciousness. Not near death, but during brain death. As I've noted, there have been no cases of brain death and NDE time.

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.) — Sam26

I genuinely appreciate the literature. But I don't think you're understanding what I'm stating again. I'm not denying NDE's happen. No one with even a little bit of medical understanding does. What I'm denying is that they are any proof of consciousness actually leaving the body. As I noted with my last two links, NDE's can be replicated medically by brain stimulation and temporary oxygen deprivation. In no case has there been a confirmation of someone actually seeing their body. A very easy test is once the patient is unconscious, a person places some object or writing behind them where their eyes cannot see. If the person is actually having a real out of body experience, they'll see it. No out of body experience has ever been able to accurately report this.

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). — Sam26

You can just use the word 'true' instead of veridical, that's fine. No, your conclusion does not follow from NDE's being real. You have to demonstrate the NDE's happen on brain death, that out of body experiences are able to accurately report the way the room was at brain death, and that NDE's cannot be replicated by temporary oxygen deprivation that has little risk of death, or can't be duplicated by stimulating the brain. All of these demonstrate that this is a brain function, not consciousness leaving the brain and coming back in.

Have you ever had a vivid dream before? I ask, because some people don't. A vivid dream can feel incredibly real. I have sometimes come out of dreams thinking that I was in another world. Of course, I wasn't. You have to understand that your brain simulates everything. The light entering your eyes is not vision. The brains interpretation of it and construction is. I can envision things when I shut my eyes and have vivid daydreams. My consciousness is not leaving my brain, its just an aspect of the brain.

Unless you’re simply saying that the experiences are real but not veridical. — Sam26

No, the subjective experience is real. There is no objective demonstration that a person has actually left their body and seen the room as it is changed away from their bodies eyes. There is no objective confirmation that someone's OBE happened during brain death. Just like when I had a vivid dream of fighting a gorilla and woke up, my consciousness did not travel to another dimension where I fought an actual gorilla.

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. — Sam26

Feel free to cite some counters then. This is too generic for me and I'll need more details please. Your experience and whether things are wanting are irrelevant, just like my opinions on the matter are irrelevant. Cite facts and studies that demonstrate why or why not NDEs are valid/invalid.

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. — Sam26

No, I don't. You've already done that for me. You're already stated you're using an inductive argument, which by definition, is not true. Its a prediction, or supposition. To have a viable inductive argument, you need to demonstrate why it overrides facts that counter your induction, or demonstrate why its more rational than other competing inductive arguments that have competing or contrasting conclusions with yours.

I have not denied NDE's exist. I've demonstrated that they are not evidence of consciousness surviving the body due to the fact that no OBE's can be objectively confirmed with tests, and we can simulate NDE's at lower levels of trauma with neurology and oxygen deprivation. Not to mention the mounds of medical research that demonstrate you are your brain. Neuroscience, psychadelics, psychiatrics, and even numerous cases of brain trauma have all demonstrated this.

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 — Sam26

For scientists, this is incorrect. "You are your brain," is the only reasonable scientific conclusion with what we know. People test and hypothesize that there is more, but none of these have borne fruit. A hypothesis is not a scientific conclusion. As for philosophers, yes. You can find a philosopher that will believe almost anything. The question is whether they can give a reasonable argument for their beliefs.

Lets address Chalmers. Yes, I'm very familiar with him.

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. — Sam26

Two points:

1. There has been nearly a lifetime of brain research since he published his 1974 paper. We barely had basic computers back then. We have made immense strides. Research neuroscience, not philosophy.

2. You misinterpret what he means by "the physicalist approach to consciousness is not sufficient". Chalmers to this date does not deny that the brain is where consciousness comes from. What he's noting is that our study of the brain in particular to date, cannot be used as a model to explain the subjective experience. Let me explain further.

How you subjectively experience the world, and how a bat subjectively experiences the world are obviously different. Lets say that we further science to the point where we are able to perfectly replicate a bat's brain, and your brain. Can we still be the bat? No. Can we still be you? No. We would ask your brain, "How are you feeling?" and simulated neurons 44-100 would light up. Does that tell us what its like to be the experience itself of neurons 44-100 lighting up? No.

Lets say we objectively knock out the consciousness of your simulated brain by stimulating neurons 1-10. And we can do it every time. Objectively, you're unconscious. But what does it feel like subjectively? We'll never know. Its impossible to be the thing we're studying. That's what Chalmer's nailed. He did not deny in any way that consciousness is not generated from your brain.

The fact we can never objectively know what its like to be a subjective conscious is the hard problem. The idea that consciousness comes from your brain is the easy problem. People confuse this all the time and think that there some rational notion that we are not our brains. It has been confirmed that we are our brains for some time now, and if an inductive argument is going to challenge that, it has a lot more that it needs to tackle then what you've provide.

Although this post doesn’t address every question or challenge it gives more information to support my conclusions and raises other considerations. — Sam26

I may disagree with you, but I appreciate the write up and the citations.

Bob tries to follow Alice, but he has to guess which Earth she teleported to. What are Bob's chances of getting it right? — RogueAI

Bob's chances of getting it right are 1 out of infinity.

Is there any way for a teleporter machine to randomly select an Earth out of an infinite number of them in a finite amount of time, or is there always going to be, practically speaking, only a finite amount of Earths for Alice to teleport to because of the limitations of the machine? — RogueAI

Its your thought experiment, that's a limitation you decide.

What if I cheat and say the teleporter pokes a hole into the universe and the universe somehow, through a mysterious process, randomly picks an Earth out of an infinitely large ensemble for Alice to teleport to? Are Bob's chances of teleporting to Alice's world zero? — RogueAI

1 out of infinity still.

This was particularly amusing considering two years ago I was nominated for teacher of the year at my site for the first time. — RogueAI

Yes, due to age and experience. And again, you didn't win. My mother makes six figures and is often praised for her work. Both myself and my sister despise her because she's a mess in her personal life, and we don't call her after 5 o'clock. She too thinks her drinking is fine despite downing near a bottle of wine every night. She is not.

I also didn't say, "Productive at your job." I meant productive in general, in your life.

Notice to how you're not presenting contrary science or facts, but personal emotional anecdotes? That's rationalizing what you do, not being rational about what you do. What's more important? Emotionally confirming that you're ok and it does nothing wrong to you, or finding out the actual facts?

Thus again, you are a slave to your emotions. Because every fact about alcoholics shows that you are hurting yourself, diminished as an individual, and will likely gain comorbidities several years earlier. Just like smokers who think they're fine.

And yes, everyone I know is addicted to something: booze, food, painkillers, porn, weed, Facebook, smoking, sex, gambling, shopping, etc. — RogueAI

No. There is a difference between passing moderate enjoyment and addiction. Four drinks a day is in no way moderate.

A rational person would easily see that alcoholism is only detrimental to the individual. Only an emotional person would even try to argue otherwise without any science behind it. Not that I expect my words will get through. Rational arguments don't work against people who are slaves to their emotions. Its why you can rarely reason someone away from religion. Less intelligent people rely on their emotions more, and alcoholism also diminishes intelligence. So it becomes a trap that usually only a great and horrible event can overcome, and even then many fail.

Good luck RogueAI. I'm sure you'll rationalize that you're perfectly fine, never knowing how much greater you could have been.

I keep it at four drinks a day. My body seems to have handled that pretty well over the decades. Vital signs were good at last checkup. If I was really becoming as self-centered as you claim, I think it would have bled into my marriage or career, but those are going well too. — RogueAI

Rationalizations, but not rational arguments. You've likely diminished your intelligence, so have a lower awareness. That impacts your personal interactions more than you think. You're certainly less productive. Your biological age is also worse off. meaning you will not only die sooner, but start to suffer age related effects several years earlier.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2022-07-26-genetic-study-provides-evidence-alcohol-accelerates-biological-aging

Alcoholism is a slow poison that diminishes who you are as a person a few braincells at a time. If you could chart your diminished personality and intelligence over the years, you would likely panic. But because you don't see it daily, like a frog being boiled in a pot, you're cooking yourself without seeing it.

The problem with being dumber, is you often don't realize it. As your awareness diminishes, you sink ever more into habit, certainties, and have less room for new and interesting things in your life. I've grown up around alcoholics all of my life, and have seen recoveries. By all the science and facts, you are only causing harm to yourself. But because you emotionally like it, you keep doing it and will look for rationalizations to continue. Therefore, you are a slave to your emotions. Especially the part about, "Everyone is addicted to something." No, they aren't.

Every alcoholic thinks they're doing fine. Every single one of them is wrong. Every alcoholic thinks they're special. None of them are.

I agree with all that except the alcoholic part. I've been an alcoholic for 30 years, but I'm not (I don't think) a slave to my emotions. — RogueAI

Isn't that an emotional response? Rationally you know alcohol causes long term bodily and brain damage. The brain damage is especially at the emotional level. There is no benefit besides emotional satisfaction at the expense of your body. So yes, you are a slave to your emotions. My father was a former alcoholic, and has seen people sober vs in it deep. You change, even when you're not drinking right then. And its always, without exception, for the worst for everyone around you. You become so self-centered that you don't recognize it or dismiss anything that would get you to stop.

I agree we're in an oligarchy in practice, but that's what the voters want. Every two years, we have the option of throwing all the bums out in the House, but we never do. Even in "wave" years, the vast majority of House members are reelected. The tools are there to radically change the system, and if young people ever get politically active and turn out en masse... but that's a pipe dream. — RogueAI

But why do the voters want those people? There are a few reasons.

1. News organizations are owned by people with wealthy interests. So subjects are most often about manipulating the population for things a few wealthy people want, and not the subjects that most people would really want if it were blared in their face everyday.

2. In a democracy, the emotional, the tribal, and short term self-interested thinkers outweigh rational, long term people who take the time to think about the big picture. Since the news does not do its job of presenting long term rational thinking to viewers, these people are extremely easy to manipulate.

My mother is an example of this. She's an alcoholic, so basically a slave to her emotions. She's hooked to Fox News and "Selfish outrage" shows like a drug. She craves the idea that her hard work is being invalidated by lesser beings, so that's why we have to cut federal programs. Of course its all a sham by wealthy people to pay less taxes and have less reign on their ambitions. But she's too enamored with the group social outrage and "I'm better than them" mentality she keeps getting sold.

The ideal of a Democracy is that the people who live in an area vote their self-interest. The reality after things get too big, is we need honest messaging to show people what the real problems and solutions are. The reality is that because we let the wealthy have a monopoly on main stream messaging, its not honest. So all the little people are the soldiers between a few wealthy people's vision for the country.

How could we be a failed democracy with free and fair elections every two years? Do you see that going away? — RogueAI

A democracy is not about the illusion of representation. As I cited a little above:

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

"A proposed policy change with low support among economically elite Americans (one-out-of-five in favour) is adopted only about 18% of the time," they write, "while a proposed change with high support (four-out-of-five in favour) is adopted about 45% of the time."

Your vote actually doesn't count for that much. If the wealthy want it, great. If not, it'll probably never happen.