Or is it inferred from recognizing or interpreting the experience as a typical near death experience because one has seen alleged near death experiences depicted or described? — jkop
My view of epistemology is that there are several ways of acquiring knowledge that aren’t dependent on a scientific approach (experimentation, data collection, and peer-reviewed papers). — Sam26
he three epistemological elements of my argument include logic, sensory experience, and testimonial evidence. These three ways of acquiring knowledge are sufficient in themselves to make a reasonable conclusion that consciousness survives death. — Sam26
I’m not claiming that our knowledge in this case is known with absolute certainty, just as most of our knowledge isn’t known with absolute certainty. I’m claiming that the evidence is known with a high degree of certainty. — Sam26
This objective component also dispels the notion that the experience is a hallucination, delusion, dream, lack of oxygen, etc. — Sam26
And to think that someone can point to some brain activity to show that it’s the brain that creates consciousness is similar to pointing to a component in a radio to show that what you’re listening to is confined to the radio. It doesn't follow. — Sam26
Another important point is that many of the people who have NDEs report that their experience is not diminished, which is what you might expect with a brain that isn’t getting enough oxygen or blood, in fact, it is heightened. By heightened I mean their sensory experiences are much sharper, they see colors that they haven’t seen before, and their vision is reported to be expanded (360-degree vision) in many cases. — Sam26
it is impossible for life to continue after death? — Philosophim
By definition. Death is the end of living. There should be no debate. — ENOAH
I was a little surprised to find you had not addressed my response to you. I linked you a nice article and addressed your points. To ignore someone who does this and repeat what you spoke about earlier is avoidance, and an indicator that you don't have the answers to the previous points. — Philosophim
he three epistemological elements of my argument include logic, sensory experience, and testimonial evidence. These three ways of acquiring knowledge are sufficient in themselves to make a reasonable conclusion that consciousness survives death.
— Sam26
No, they are not.
1. Logic indicates you are making an induction, not a reasonable conclusion. Logic also indicates per the article that I linked, that the existence of NDE's does not mean that there was evidence of actual death at the time the person had the vision/dream. — Philosophim
2. Sensory experience has been disproven by the fact people can sink in and out of consciousness in anesthesia, and it has not been conclusively pin pointed when exactly a person had a NDE. It is not that NDE's do not happen, its that there's no indicator they are actual experiences after brain death. To conclude there is consciousness after death, one must have an example of consciousness after actual death and a return to life. — Philosophim
3. You only conclude a bias of testimonial evidence. You do not include the majority of cases in which people do not have NDE's when in similar near death experiences. You do not include the nightmares, or the visions of things that do not exist. You cherry pick nice and positive experiences then say, "They're all like that." They are all not. When taken as a whole, NDE's are very much like dreams and minimal conscious processing. — Philosophim
I read your argument, but it does not support your conclusion that consciousness survives death. You call your argument "inductive"; I think it would be better labeled "abductive" - because you are proposing a explanatory hypothesis that fits the facts associated with NDEs. Analyzed this way, we could consider whether or not your hypothesis is the best explanation for the available facts. You sidestep this, by simply claiming your conclusion is a reasonable inductive inference. I don't think it is reasonable, but this is shown most easily by comparing it to alternative hypotheses that better explain the available facts.First, I've given the criteria of a good inductive argument, and based on those criteria the inductive conclusion is overwhelmingly reasonable. (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/912262) — Sam26
So, your conclusion that I'm avoiding you and don't have answers to your posts is incorrect. There's nothing that you've posted that's difficult to answer, and much of what you've posted shows a lack of understanding of the subject of NDEs, even the paper you posted can be addressed, although it would take more time. — Sam26
First, I've given the criteria of a good inductive argument, and based on those criteria the inductive conclusion is overwhelmingly reasonable. — Sam26
I don't know about you, but if someone tells me that they see X during their experience and it's corroborated by doctors, nurses, staff, and family members, then that's a veridical experience. You can keep denying what millions of people are saying because you're entrenched in a materialistic worldview, but it won't change the facts. — Sam26
Your responses demonstrate that you haven't studied these experiences, and your responses clearly show that. — Sam26
Again, I'm not aware of NDEs that don't generally confirm an OBE, so I don't know what you're referring to. — Sam26
What seems strange to me is that you seem to ignore so many other studies and peer-reviewed material, which at least acknowledges that many of these questions are open to many scientists (open for them, not for me). — Sam26
Sorry I can't respond to everything or everybody, I just don't have the energy nor the inclination — Sam26
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.