I've just read the full article. Perhaps you can clear up what seems, for me, the major stumbling block. Brain cells take hours to die from anoxia. Since NDEs are only recorded in those who've been resuscitated, by definition, their brain cells still had some capacity, they were dead according to cardiopulmonary measures, but there's no reason to assume their neurological system had no function. — Isaac
True, but death/coma is, in these cases, scientifically measured. If we relieve ourselves of the truth of such an assessment, then it's just as easy to say the survivors weren't dead (or near dead). In other words, nothing remotely unusual is happening here at all absent of a scientific expectation of mental activity in anoxic conditions.
All the reports seem to show (I haven't read a lot) is some people report weird experiences in traumatic circumstances. It only becomes noteworthy if we learn these traumatic experiences were all 'near death'. But we only know they were 'near death' using a scientific investigation of their biology.
It seems a little cherry-picking to accept a scientific definition of 'near death' to categorise these events, but then reject it when categorising what counts as neurological activity. — Isaac
It always amazes me when people discount testimonial evidence, as not evidence. — Sam26
-Correct. I am not going to watch a video presenting claims that are in direct conflict with our current scientific epistemology. I am willing to read a scientific paper that challenges our epistemology through objective evidence...but not videos like this one( I am sure I have watched them before and I wont do it again).You obviously didn't listen to all of the videos where I addressed the issue of objective evidence — Sam26
-You are using Supernatural Speculations by some "Academics", not Academic Epistemology. None of those claims are part of our Epistemology in Cognitive science or Neuroscience.Moreover, I find it rich, that you talk about me not "taking in to account Academic epistemology..." which is what the soul of my argument has been about. — Sam26
-ok......well I don't need to make any arguments especially when we deal with scientific knowledge. I can send you a tone of Academic courses proving the claim in your title wrong. Can you do that? of course not...You and ↪180 Proof
should stick together because you seem to be expert at simply making pronouncements without an argument. — Sam26
-There are great Academics Moocs on the subject. Nowhere in those courses you will find scientists entertaining the claims you are presenting because no objective evidence to support them...only stories of people interpreting their experiences based on their beliefs.How about reading and studying the literature and not assuming your conclusion is true without a basis in fact. Only one person in this thread gave a decent response to my inductive argument. Most of the other responses have been mostly visceral in nature, not logical. — Sam26
:clap: :100:The title of this thread is "Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body" and you go on cherry picking "evidence" that are testimonial and you ignore all the scientific body of evidence.This is dishonest. Then you declare testimonial evidence to be "academic" when Science rejects subjective opinions by default!
Ignoring credible epistemology makes your claims pseudo philosophical — Nickolasgaspar
:roll: You know I do ...↪180 Proof .... Don't you have any arguments? — Sam26
Not true. Just because you do not accept my argument — you certainly haven't refuted it – doesn't indicate I haven't made an argument. Another showing that your reasoning, Sam, is quite poor.
What you fail to consider or recognize is that every life from its birth to its death is a "near-death experience" because we are mortal beings. There cannot be even a glimpse of – that there is – "life after death" by the not-yet-dead any more than "north of the North Pole" can be reached by a hiker. That people are revived to tell their "NDE stories" proves they were not ever fundamentally – metaphysically – dead to begin with. "Clinical death" only indicates the limit of medical interventions for reviving the patient; this, however, is not organic, irreversible death.
While the patient is "down" and there is a complete cessation of brain activity, this is proof that the patient's brain is not forming any new memory traces of the so-called "NDE" the patient believes she had while her brain activity was zero. So whence the "NDE"? It likely happens during the patient's revival after brain activity has resumed.
Notably, the vast majority of coma patients who revive from near or complete vegetative states do not report "NDEs"; that a very tiny fraction of "the clinically dead" have reported "NDEs" is no more statistically significant than reports of "alien abductions".
-I should have done the same with your OP because you already decided to ignore the epistemology that really matters and instead present fringe supernatural claims as if it is science or legit philosophical conclusions.I'm inclined not to respond to this because you've already decided without looking at my argument, that the argument is in direct conflict with the epistemology of science, and therefore must be false. — Sam26
-Strawman. I am only pointing out that you are ignoring the current paradigm of Science and our current scientific frameworks on the subject. NOTHING is settled in science, even its principles (of Methodological Naturalism)...but you will need Objective evidence to change anything, not hearsay.First, you act as though the science of consciousness is settled, which is incorrect — Sam26
-I don't mind people sharing different beliefs, what I do mind is when they share their own facts and they ignore our current established epistemology.It's settled for some, but it sure isn't settled for others (other scientists), and still others are on the fence. — Sam26
_Correct. Pseudo Philosophical interpretations on consciousness are not acceptable arguments. People having an experience they can't understand ... doesn't make magic (floating minds) true!The only thing that matters are the arguments (the logic), are they good inductive arguments or not. The epistemology of science is mostly based on logical (mostly inductive) reasoning based on the data (data here is used in a very broad sense including mathematics), and the observations (sensory experience) of various experiments. — Sam26
-Correct, but when two claims compete on explaining the same phenomenon, Science is the way to go, more systematic, more methodical and its doesn't make up invisible entities to explain the phenomenon.However, epistemology is much broader than just science, i.e., I don't need science to confirm many of our knowledge claims. — Sam26
-You literally stated that you are going to arrive to a conclusion while ignoring the most methodological and systematic facts available to us....that is irrational. Your epistemology SHOULD include everything that is available us and remove those which do not meet the highest standards of systematicityI can use an inductive argument to reason to a conclusion without any use of science, and know that the conclusion follows. — Sam26
-Yes you explained it and it is wrong. You ALWAYS should work with the best available epistemology either it originates from science or not. NO , NDEs haven't been verified objectively There are cases where we can't explain the phenomenon (and the answer is "WE don't know) but most of the cases are easily explained without invoking magic. What is suspicious is, during a controlled setup we are unable those testimonies.I explain this in my thread, and in my videos. I also explain in this thread how it is that we can have NDEs that are verified objectively, i.e., corroborated or verified testimonial evidence. — Sam26
-Sure but that is not an excuse to accept supernatural claims. Our standards of evaluation should be equally high and we shouldn't accept Magic as an answer. We are not going to change the Scientific Paradigm of Methodological Naturalism for a Death Denying ideology of flying minds not being contigent to biological brains with an expiration date.It's true that science generally adds to the certainty of our arguments, but it's not as though we can't know things apart from science. — Sam26
No there isn't any. There are data with really bad and unfounded interpretations on non scientific principles(supernatural) and that is not science.By the way, there is scientific data that supports much of my argument. There is science being conducted all over the world on this subject. However, — Sam26
-IF your conclusion was sound, then science would've accept it. The problem is not that your conclusions are a product of a non scientific methodology, but they are in conflict with what we know and can verify about how the world works. We don't observe Advance properties manifesting in reality out of thin air. We have done the same error in the past again and again, making up magical entities to explain a phenomenon. ITs not wise to keep repeating that mistake.However, I don't have to rely on science to reach my conclusion, even if it helps. — Sam26
-The issue is with your principles. Supernaturalism NEEDs to be demonstrated before being used as an answer. Advanced Properties don't just emerge in nature, they are contingent to physical functions.Also, there are no other videos like mine, so to assume that my videos are like other videos is just false. My video takes an epistemological approach to the subject based on different methods of justification. — Sam26
-The argument is over 35 years ago. The evidence on conscious states being the function of the brain is overwhelming. We have technical applications and surgery protocols and diagnostics and medicinal protocols that are designed to treat the tissue of the brain for all mental "mulfunctions"...none of them are designed to tread minds in space.Anyone who takes the approach that you are taking isn't serious about challenging an argument. It's more likely that they are just giving a biased opinion with the words science and epistemology thrown into to make it sound intellectual, but it's far from that, and far from good philosophy. — Sam26
It's more likely that they are just giving a biased opinion with the words science and epistemology thrown into to make it sound intellectual, but it's far from that, and far from good philosophy. — Sam26
A definition should include a description of the Property(Phenomenon in question) plus the ontology (mechanisms, type of substance,process) of it. — Nickolasgaspar
Definition.
"Consciousness is an arousal and awareness of environment and self, which is achieved through action of the ascending reticular activating system (ARAS) on the brain stem and cerebral cortex "
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3722571/
So this the biological process that enables our ability to be conscious of stimuli(internal or external). — Nickolasgaspar
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.