Ya, I'm familiar with him. I do believe we live other lives based just on what I've learned from NDEs.

deleted

deleted

deleted

deleted

deleted

deleted

I think Grok 2 mini beta did a great job of answering these questions

@Sam26 - please see the new rules regarding LLM use.

AI

AI LLMs are not to be used to write posts either in full or in part (unless there is some obvious reason to do so, e.g. an LLM discussion thread where use is explicitly declared). Those suspected of breaking this rule will receive a warning and potentially a ban.

AI LLMs may be used to proofread pre-written posts, but if this results in you being suspected of using them to write posts, that is a risk you run. We recommend that you do not use them at all

Failure to comply will result in a warning.

:cool: :up:

I don't use LLMs to write my posts. I quoted the LLM's answer to a question. Isn't this like quoting a paper or book? Do you want me to delete the posts?

You can leave the posts you've made so far. Almost the entire post is LLM content. Don't make more like that.

It doesn't make any sense to me, but I'll delete them anyway.

:up:

Hey Sam



Looks a very substantial debate on the subject. Consolation prize :party:

Thanks, I listened to most of it and there's not anything new there. There are many more interesting videos on the topic. I've been listening to Dr. Bernardo Kastrup.

Yes, me too. He's definitely on my current list.

The following videos are among the best NDEs I've recently listened to. They are category 3 NDEs, meaning they are much more detailed and informative than category 1 or 2 NDEs. So, for those of you who have the time, these are worth listening to.

1)

2)

Sam this isn't the place to proselytize NDEs. You've made your arguments and a discussion has been had. Do these add anything new to discuss philosophically?

Can you read the title of the thread? Evidence of consciousness surviving death - that's what the thread has been about. It sure isn't about any religion if that's what you're inferring. The other sense of proselytize is to convert from one belief to another. I guess that's what any argument tries to accomplish, so I'm not sure what your point is.

Actually, you could ask the same question about my Wittgenstein threads.

I have completed the rough draft of my book (ebook), which I'll probably sell on Amazon for $5.99 within the next 90 days. I don't have a confirmed title yet, but I'm working on it. I'll probably post sections of the book in this thread. What makes my book unique is its epistemological foundation.

I hope that, in your book, you take into account the objections raised in this thread. Although I doubt you can overcome these objections, you could perhaps identify the sort of person (his background beliefs) that you believe you can persuade.

To be honest, I find the objections in this thread to be very weak, so there's not much to overcome. That said, I do address many of these objections, which are the objections that most people make. They're not new to this thread, that's for sure. I've been studying these objections for between 15 and 20 years, so I've given them their proper attention. My book is different in that it looks at the testimonial evidence from an epistemological angle and demonstrates that although testimonial evidence can be very weak, it can also be very strong.

To be honest, I find the objections in this thread to be very weak, so there's not much to overcome. — Sam26

When you claim you can overcome the objections, I think this means you didn't find them persuasive. But reflect on the fact that you persuaded no one to come closer to your view that there's a spirtual basis for NDEs (the objections explain why). Some who already believed in an afterlife may have may have gained comfort from your reasoning. So I just suggest specifying your target audience.

If you give it some thought, it very seldom happens that you convince people who are entrenched in their beliefs. This is especially true in politics and religion, but it's also true in the sciences. I try to keep up, for e.g., with the latest quantum physics arguments, and even here people are hardened by a particular theory (e.g., string theory vs loop quantum gravity). So, if I use your point, viz., "...reflect on the fact that you persuaded no one to come closer to your view that there's a spirtual basis for NDEs (the objections explain why)." - as something to consider, or as something that reflects poorly on an argument, then many good arguments would fail. It's something to consider (e.g., psychological causes of beliefs), but it's not something that should stand out as a major factor when it comes to good arguments. Arguments stand or fall on their own merits, period.

I'm not a fan of the word "spiritual" because of its religious connotations. I think reality is just more than what our current physics can explain. Although physics, along with other theories of consciousness, will eventually, I believe, move toward consciousness as being the primary driver of physical reality. All of reality swings on the "hinge" of consciousness.

Although physics, along with other theories of consciousness, will eventually, I believe, move toward consciousness as being the primary driver of physical reality. All of reality swings on the "hinge" of consciousness. — Sam26

This strikes me as relevant to identifying who your argument would and wouldn't appeal to.

This strikes me as relevant to identifying who your argument would and wouldn't appeal to. — Relativist

Yes, that's true, but beyond that, I'm trying to solve or answer a fundamental problem about consciousness. Is it just limited to the brain? I believe solving or answering this problem is partly epistemological, partly conceptual, and partly empirical.

It's a good question, but I see no strong basis to answer it. Speculative answers are easy, but cannot be well-supported epistemically. It seems to me that people are drawn toward specific answers for personal reasons. That's fine for them, but I'm too pragmatic for that.

All of reality swings on the "hinge" of consciousness. — Sam26

Might that be on account of the fact that everything we know of reality is disclosed to, by and in consciousness? Not that consciousness is a constituent in an objective sense and indeed we don’t know it as an object of cognition. Which is also why testimony about conscious experience can only ever be anecdotal.

So yes - ‘hinge’ is apt.

My book is different in that it looks at the testimonial evidence from an epistemological angle and demonstrates that although testimonial evidence can be very weak, it can also be very strong. — Sam26

We rely on testimonial evidence when it's all we have, but its credibility diminishes when no expected corresponding physical evidence emerges. Bigfoot, for example.

If you're trying to establish disembodied consciousness exists, some empirical evidence has to be found at some point. There's none. That we have a phenomenon that avoids all empirical detection offers fairly solid evidence it doesn't exist.

Assuming we're talking about reincarnation, what the claim is, at best, is that memories are inherited. Soul or consciousness transference is religious doctrine. Since we know memories are stored in the brain, and damage to the brain destroys memory in the living, that knowledge leads us to the conclusion that destruction of the brain entirely in death eliminates one's memories.