What?! Saying that "words don't accurately and completely describe any reality," contradicts the statement "Are there objects in this reality, is there light and darkness, is there space, are there beings?" — Sam26
Where in the latter statement do you see me accurately and completely describing any reality? — Sam26
These are general statements that have very little specificity to them in terms of kinds of objects, the kind of light that may or may not be in this reality, whether it's 3 or 10 dimensions of space, and, are the beings biological or composed of pure light. — Sam26
If anything the statement supports the contention. It surely doesn't contradict the former statement. — Sam26
NDEs, and whether they support the inference that consciousness survives bodily existence. If you people want to talk about whether your opinions support some theory of metaphysics, start up another thread. Thank you. — Sam26
That isn't a statement. It's a question. It's meaningless to speak of "contradicting" a question. — Michael Ossipoff
Well, let me quote you:
Words don't accurately and completely describe any reality. — Sam26
But now you say:
Are there objects in this reality, is there light and darkness, is there space, are there beings? — Sam26
You mean the one about whose complete and accurate describability with words you're contradicting yourself? :D
Which is it? — Michael Ossipoff
How broad a range of things do you think that words accurately and completely describe? To me, it seems that the burden of proof is on the person who claims that words accurately and completely describe all of Reality. — Michael Ossipoff
As I've already clarified more than once, I'm not interested in debating whether or not all of Reality is describable and discussable. — Michael Ossipoff
In trying to reply to you, it's difficult to know what you mean. Before you post, you need to be sure that you know what you mean. That would help.
Otherwise, you're wasting people's time. — Michael Ossipoff
Nonsense. The topic, when I replied to it, was far from NDEs. The survival of consciousness is a metaphysical topic, and the discussion had moved away from NDEs. — Michael Ossipoff
I don't doubt that NDEs are real (whatever that means), valid and true. And they seem tell of an impression of something good after life.
But it should be emphasized that NDEs occur early in death, and therefore don't give any evidence about the specifics of what happens later--reincarnation or sleep. — Michael Ossipoff
As for the accounts of people repeating conversations that took place when they were supposedly dead, it has been observed that people who are apparently dead can hear, and later remember what they heard, much better than anyone would have expected. So, no need for a supernatural explanation for that. — Michael Ossipoff
As for people observing things (like a shoe on the roof) that the couldn't have known, there are various explanations that don't require out-of-body-ness:
Maybe the person had previously seen that, from another building, etc.
Maybe someone else had mentioned it to them, either before or after the near-death.
In either of those instances, their account of perceiving it could be genuine, or could have been unintentionally later subconsciously embellished from the information received.
Or, on the other hand, it could be a hoax, on the part of the patient, or a family-member, or someone else who wanted a better NDE story.
The trouble with some of you guys is that you refuse to consider the possibility of hoax or honest subconscious embellishment.
"How do you explain that?!!" Well, the original reporting person, or the author of the book, made it up.
That goes for UFO stories, ghost accounts, alleged memories of past lives, etc. — Michael Ossipoff
Saying that "words don't accurately and completely describe any reality, — Sam26
.I don't doubt that NDEs are real (whatever that means), valid and true. And they seem tell of an impression of something good after life.
.
But it should be emphasized that NDEs occur early in death, and therefore don't give any evidence about the specifics of what happens later--reincarnation or sleep.
.What does it mean for an NDE to be real? That must be a difficult concept for you to apprehend.
.
.Real in the sense that any of our sensory perceptions are real. In other words, they're not hallucinations, illusions, dreams, imaginings, etc.
.Actually many NDEs do tell us that some things about living out other lives, not the specifics obviously, but enough to draw the conclusion that there probably something to the idea.
.Of course any one (or some) NDE can be explained away with other explanations, that's why it's important to look at a wide variety of reports from a variety of sources and cultures.
.And to compare these reports with UFO accounts, ghost stories, and past lives, etc., is to show complete ignorance of the facts as presented in my original argument.
.These testimonial statements are just as strong as any testimonial evidence.
.It's not that difficult to rule out the possible explanations you've presented. It's been done many times.
.you make it sound like your possible answers explain these NDEs away
., but they're just the kind of responses that someone would make who never studied NDEs, and who never closely studied the testimonial evidence.
Real” isn’t metaphysically-defined. I have no idea what people at a philosophy forum mean by it. I try to avoid that word. Or, when I mention it, I emphasize that I don’t know what it would mean—as I did in the passage that you quoted. — Michael Ossipoff
I haven’t heard of those. I’ve read a few books on NDEs, and haven’t heard of ones that suggested knowledge about past lives. So probably not a high percentage of NDEs report that. — Michael Ossipoff
Real” isn’t metaphysically-defined. I have no idea what people at a philosophy forum mean by it. I try to avoid that word. Or, when I mention it, I emphasize that I don’t know what it would mean—as I did in the passage that you quoted.
Sorry I don't always get back to every response.
On some of these ideas we're in agreement, or at least close, but in other areas we seem far apart, but I guess that's natural.
One area of disagreement has to do with the use of the word real as it pertains to metaphysical questions. The word real isn't always as clear cut as we would like it to be, but that doesn't mean we can't use the word in reference to metaphysics, i.e., simply because it has no clear cut meaning. The word real is vague by it's very nature, even when used in reference to the physical universe. However, it does get even more problematic when discussing metaphysics, but that doesn't mean we can't know what people mean by real in terms of the metaphysical. You seem to want to limit its use because it's vague, but many words are like this, and yet we understand their use.
For example, we often ask, "Is God real?" without any precise definition that applies, and yet we seem to understand the implications of the question.
I haven’t heard of those [NDEs that speak of previous lives]. I’ve read a few books on NDEs, and haven’t heard of ones that suggested knowledge about past lives. So probably not a high percentage of NDEs report that.
I've divided NDEs into three categories - category 1 is just a very basic NDE where someone might experience an OBE and observe things taking place around them while their body is unconscious. Category 2 has more information, i.e., they may see deceased relatives, go through a tunnel, experience a life review, etc. And then there are category 3 NDEs, which give us even more information about the experience. An example of a category 3 NDE would be Dr. Eben Alexander's NDE, which gives more detailed information about the experience, but there are many category 3 NDEs that give more information than is generally known. Many of my conclusions about past lives has come from what people have said about their category 3 experience, and yes, this category isn't as pervasive as category 1 and 2 NDEs, but there are still many thousands of them. So there is plenty of evidence, but not enough to be dogmatic about it. All I can say is that it seems to be the case that based on these testimonials that certain conclusions follow. Moreover, there is also testimonial evidence of past lives from people who have experienced DMT, and these experiences are closely related to NDEs, i.e., they have some of the same experiences and more.
The word real isn't always as clear cut as we would like it to be, but that doesn't mean we can't use the word in reference to metaphysics, i.e., simply because it has no clear cut meaning. The word real is vague by it's very nature, even when used in reference to the physical universe. However, it does get even more problematic when discussing metaphysics, but that doesn't mean we can't know what people mean by real in terms of the metaphysical. You seem to want to limit its use because it's vague, but many words are like this, and yet we understand their use. — Sam26
For example, we often ask, "Is God real?" without any precise definition that applies, and yet we seem to understand the implications of the question.
For example, we often ask, "Is God real?" without any precise definition that applies, and yet we seem to understand the implications of the question.
I claim that metaphysics is a precise and scientific subject, and that there's no need to use words with vague or unknown meaning. — Michael Ossipoff
we are far apart on the idea that metaphysics is a precise and scientific subject, i.e., I look at it as having some precision, but also having areas of blurred boundaries. And even the word precise falls into the category of being blurred, depending on context/use. For example, I can say, "Stand precisely here," without having an exact spot in mind, i.e., if you come over and stand roughly where I was pointing, that will do. I'm not going to say, "No, your not standing exactly where I pointed," as you get down and point to a piece of gravel. Now of course sometimes we do have an exact spot in mind, but the point is that much of language is very vague, and yet we use these concepts in ways we understand, we do it all the time. — Sam26
Second, let's consider the statement "God exists." My contention is that we can refer to such a being without having a very precise definition, and still have an idea of what we're talking about, at least generally. To explain this further let's use this example: For the sake of argument let's suppose that we were having an argument about whether Augustus Caesar existed, do we need a precise definition of who we're talking about in order to have a sensible discussion/argument? What kind of definition could one give that someone else couldn't say, that's not very precise? Someone might ask you, "Who or what is Caesar," i.e., give me a definition? Whatever definition you give, surely it isn't going to explain Caesar's exact nature or character, but it's probably going to be close enough for us to have a sensible conversation.
My point would be that this is true of the concept God
1) Seeing one's body from a third person perspective, i.e., from outside one's body. And hearing and seeing what's happening around their bodies.
2) Having intense feelings of being loved, and also intense feeling of peace.
3) Seeing a light or tunnel in the distance and feeling that one is being drawn to the light, or moving through the tunnel towards the light.
4) Seeing deceased loved ones [...] — Sam26
Ultimately Sam, no matter which way you look at this issue the answer always must be "maybe". While there is much fascinating anecdotal evidence for an afterlife, it's still only anecdotal. — Greta
Further, we know of no mechanism with which the information that makes you "you" can be preserved outside of a brain (or perhaps one day a quantum computer). Maybe the mechanism exists and we haven't yet discovered it? Again, maybe. — Greta
Also, given the extraordinary changes that occur in us between womb and grave, it's rather difficult to see continuity. Wipe our memories and we effectively become someone else. Where did the original "you" - who is now effectively dead or dormant - go? Where is it during deep sleep? — Greta
Wittgenstein compared the definition of certain words to family resemblances, that is, there are many overlapping resemblances that fit within the descriptive universe of family members; and just as no one description will adequately describe all family members, so no one definition or theory of meaning will cover every use of certain words. The example Wittgenstein uses in the Philosophical Investigations is the word game, there is no one definition that will describe every possible use of the word game because the universe of uses is just too large to describe precisely. — Sam26
I haven't read the entire thread; but, words derive their meaning by the way they are used, and currently talking about NDE is grounded by convention of science (although, I think Quantum Mechanics and the 'observer' effect is changing minds about the issue) or the 'rules of the game' at play say that the whole thing must necessarily be empirical. So, what I'm saying is that maybe a new paradigm shift is needed to rescue the subjective validity of Near Death Experiences from the dogmatism of the empirical and whatnot to some objective and palpable phenomenon. — Posty McPostface
My reservations come from the gap between our perceptions and actual reality, noumena, which means that our common physiological characteristics may result in common end-of-life mental and emotional effects. — Greta
I agree that NDEs are not just hallucinations or dream. In a hallucination or dream, our perceptions are inconsequential to our ensuing physical (if not, mental) reality. In an NDE, when the senses have shut down, the external physical reality is basically over and thus becomes almost completely inconsequential. At that point, subjective reality is everything; there is nothing else, no input, no external future. — Greta
1) Seeing one's body from a third person perspective, i.e., from outside one's body. And hearing and seeing what's happening around their bodies — Sam26
It could be that one's body takes up far greater space than the visible one which appears enclosed in the skin. — raza
A shade off topic but, actually, there is evidence. Our microbiome, for example, extends beyond our bodies; we carry a cloud of our microbes around us at all times, as well as an EM field and a heat field. There is also a mental field interpreted as personal space. There are also the fields of our senses that extend a long way from our bodies.I'm not sure what it would mean for our bodies to take up a greater space than what's visible. There's no evidence that that's the case. — Sam26
People have had NDEs where they're looking at Earth from a place in space, your idea wouldn't account for such an experience — Sam26
A shade off topic but, actually, there is evidence. Our microbiome, for example, extends beyond our bodies; we carry a cloud of our microbes around us at all times, as well as an EM field and a heat field. There is also a mental field interpreted as personal space. There are also the fields of our senses that extend a long way from our bodies.
These things are not generally interpreted as as "I", not only because we can't see them, but we can't feel them - they don't trigger our nervous systems. Thus, we are not evolved to perceive all that we are, just the aspects that played the greatest role in survival. — Greta
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.