I think a point you’re missing is that there might be things that can only be known in the first person, that are true, but not necessarily ‘objective’. I mean, if you restrict the criterion for what constitutes an ‘objective fact’ to the empirical sciences, then basically you’ve fallen into some form of positivism. — Wayfarer
Few discuss limits of science and what can be alternatives.by its nature is beyond the purview of natural science. — Wayfarer
Your belief is always respected but when it comes to proving its objectivity, it's a dead end. The wikipedia summary put NDE to a suspension and I doubt with less formal approach one would get beyond that.since other people have seen similar things within the NDE framework or experience, I believe it shows an objective reality apart from ours. — Sam26
Finally, and I'm very familiar with Dr. Alexander's book, I would contend that what people are seeing in these NDEs does constitute an objective reality, so what constitutes or makes up an objective fact is not limited to our spacial temporal reality (our universe). — Sam26
You’re neglecting a crucial factor, even it it’s somewhat mythical. Hint: three-letter word, begins with ‘f’. — Wayfarer
A measure of healthy skepticism is warranted. — jorndoe
consciousness without body would be like semantics without syntax, thought without the direction of desire — Joshs
called logic. — Sam26
objective facts. — Sam26
Try using your own rules (your own clues) to do mathematics, — 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.