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

That isn't a statement. It's a question. It's meaningless to speak of "contradicting" a question.

In any case, light, darkness, space and beings are, not only elements of metaphysics, but they're also things of a physical universe. I've repeatedly emphasized that metaphysics and the physical world are discussable and describable. For example a physical universe, and its things that you listed, are discussable and describable by physics.

You also asked about "objects". Not all objects are physical, but they're all metaphysical, and therefore discussable and describable.

So much for that question.

In any case, I also clarified that I'm not interested in debating whether or not all of Reality can be accurately and completely described. If you think so, then that's your business. I repeat that it's time to just agree to disagree.

Where in the latter statement do you see me accurately and completely describing any reality? — Sam26

Nowhere

I make no claim that your statement (that I contradicted a question, or that your question is a statement), accurately or completely described anything. :D

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

You'd need to be a little more specific about what that's relevant to. Regardless of that lack of specificity, most of what you listed are elements of a physical world. And objects can be physical parts of a physical world, or metaphysical "objects", such as the often-discussed "abstract objects". In either case, they're physical &/or metaphysical, and therefore discussable and describable.

If anything the statement supports the contention. It surely doesn't contradict the former statement. — Sam26

Who knows what statement and what contention you're referring to.

Is the "statement" you're referring to, the question that you call a "statement"?

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.

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

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.

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.

But I suggest that your question is a pointless one: As I've been saying, consciousness survives, in the sense that no one ever experiences a time when they don't experience.

Though your survivors will say that you're dead, and completely shut-down, you'll never experience that time.

...whether what follows the NDE is sleep, or reincarnation.

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.

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.

(Though there probably is reincarnation, there's no reason to believe that people could remember a past life. In fact, I claim that past-lives are indeterminate, not just unknowable.)

Michael Ossipoff

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

So if it's meaningless to speak of a contradiction when a question is involved, then why did you say I was contradicting myself? I thought you saw what I saw, namely, that the question was rhetorical, used to make a specific point. The point being that in any reality there are going to be quantifiable things (objects, light and darkness, space, beings, etc.) otherwise what are you talking about? No need to show me your logic acumen, but technically you're correct.

You're the one who said...

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

So if I say "Words don't accurately and completely describe any reality," and "Any reality is going to have something in it (e.g., my rhetorical question) for us to describe," are these statements contradictory? From my point of view they are not, nothing in these statements "accurately and completely" describes anything.

You're saying that words don't accurately and completely describe all of reality, and on this point we're in agreement. I probably misunderstood parts of your statements.

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

That's fine, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to address the idea. There're others reading these post who might be interested in the ideas and where they lead.

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

I wouldn't want to waste your time. Yes, that could have been written better. Sometimes I'll quickly respond to something without editing, and it will be as clear as mud. It happens from time-to-time, but generally I do fair job, I think.

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 find that you tend to be a bit snide in some of your remarks. Yes, the topic has drifted away from the original discussion, but my point stands.

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

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.

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

No one made the claim that these people were dead, the claim is that they're near death, hence the term near death experience. A doctor may make the claim that the person was dead, that is, that there was no heart beat or no brain activity, but there is an obvious difference between that and permanent death.

The point about people hearing and remembering things when in this state, is that many of them have no brain activity. And even if there is some remnant of brain activity, how is that their experiences are much more vivid than what we experience with normal brain activity? One would think that their experiences would be less vivid with minimal brain activity. Yes, it has been reported that people "hear and later remember what they heard...," many of these come from NDEs.

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

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. Moreover, to not consider those possible explanations would be an error of someone who examined the testimonial evidence in a very cursory way.

I find your remarks to be not well thought through. Your rebuttals are more like those of a freshman. At least I put forth an inductive argument. You may not agree with it, but 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.

Saying that "words don't accurately and completely describe any reality, — Sam26

By the way, I didn't say that words don't accurately and completely describe any reality.

I said that words don't accurately and completely describe all of Reality.

Not quite the same thing :D

Michael Ossipoff

Fair enough

I think that the matter of discussability and describabiliy has been resolved.
.
I’d said:
.

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” 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.
.
And, in that passage, I agreed that NDEs are valid and true, and that their implications are meaningful.
.

Real in the sense that any of our sensory perceptions are real. In other words, they're not hallucinations, illusions, dreams, imaginings, etc.

.
Yes, I don’t think there’s reason to believe that they’re any of those things.

.

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.

.
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.
.
I haven’t claimed that it can be ruled out that there could be some such memory. Nisargatta suggested that too, though he didn’t claim that it would be frequent or detailed. Conceivably the NDE condition could bring it out.
.
But, though reincarnation is metaphysically-implied, it’s reincarnation without knowledge of past lives (…though , in agreement with Nisargatta, I don’t claim that it entirely rules out the possibility of rare and un-detailed memory, maybe brought-out only in NDEs).
.
If someone remembers overheard conversations at a time when no brain-activity was measured for them, then the measurement wasn’t accurate enough.
.
I can’t explain why or how such a memory could be unusually vivid, but that vividness doesn’t prove an out-of-body origin.
.
I shouldn’t use the word “supernatural”, because that term is so favoritely used by Materialists and Atheists, neither of which I am. What I meant was that there seems to be a principle-of-equivalence, that whatever happens in our physical world is consistent with the usual physical laws, and that that doesn’t contradict Idealist metaphysics or reincarnation, or such nonphysical matters.
.
For instance, my metaphysics doesn’t contradict the accepted physical laws. Reincarnation needn’t contradict those laws either. Physical laws don’t apply to those matters. NDEs don’t contradict known physical law either. They’re consistent with that principle-of-equivalence.
.
But physical laws do apply to the information that a person can report about a shoe on the roof. For someone to report a shoe on the roof, without any of the usual physical means of knowing about it—that contradicts known physical science. That’s in a whole different category from Subjective Idealist metaphysics, reincarnation, and NDEs, all of which I consider valid.
.
When something is claimed that outright contradicts physical law, then we should be skeptical of such reports. Prosaic explanations like hoax, unintentional embellishment, coaching by interviewers, unconscious sharing of information by others…etc. There are lots of such prosaic explanations, and, they should be considered as alternatives to accepting, at face value, reports that contradict known physical law.
.

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.

.
I don’ t doubt the validity of NDEs/.
.

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.

.
I don’t compare NDEs with those things. Those things (maybe with the qualified partial exception of some past-life reports) are examples of reports that have prosaic explanations, making them not compelling.
.
I can’t say for sure that, maybe, it isn’t impossible that rarely, something about a past life could truly be reported.
.
But, by my metaphysics, and that principle-of-equivalence, the report would have to also have a prosaic explanation, even if there’s something true about it too. But, if past-lives are completely indeterminate, as I claim, then the meaning of saying that such a report is “true” isn’t quite the same. Maybe true in the sense of being not inconsistent with the person’s current life and its beginning.
.
Ghosts? I don’t know. The only report s that I pretty-much rule out are the reports of ghost visible to someone who didn’t know the deceased, or when that observer is fully awake, or which can be recorded by cameras or other physical measuring equipment.
.
If the observer knew, was close to, the deceased, and wasn’t fully awake, I don’t say that “explains away” the ghost report. It merely means that the report meets that principle-of-equivalence, which says that anything that results in something physical, like a report, should be consistent with the known workings of the physical world (or else you’re claiming some new physical science not yet discovered).
.
UFOs? It’s a bit of a reach to say that someone would come (or send robotic vehicles) here, across interstellar distances, only to observe, and scare a few people in remote locations. And, if they only wanted to be observe, does anyone think that, with their advanced technology, they couldn’ observe unobserved by us? That would give “candid-camera” observations that would surely be more informative…if they didn’t give us any reasons to believe they were here.
.
So there’s a motivational argument against extraterrestrial UFOs.
.
Definitely the burden is on the person advocating them.
.
A person could hold up a UFO book, with an account that defies explanation, and say, “How do you explain this?” . The answer, of course, is that the author made it up.
.
I read that that turned out to be the case with Von Daniken. He reported things that pretty much couldn’t be explained without extraterrestrial visitors. …but was later found to have just made it up.
.
Have you heard of Dr. Rhine’s ESP experiments at Duke University? Very convincing, until we hear about his cherry-picking methodology. Again, the convincingness resulted from faulty reporting.
.

These testimonial statements are just as strong as any testimonial evidence.

.
The reports of overheard conversations sound plausible to me, and don’t necessarily contradict physical law.
.
The report about the shoe on the roof, without any known physical way the person could know about it—that contradicts known physical law, and the prosaic alternatives seem, to me, more likely.
.

It's not that difficult to rule out the possible explanations you've presented. It's been done many times.

.
If we’re talking about the alleged contravention of physical law, then that’s the issue-of-contention: Yes, an author can claim that all physical-consistent explanations have been ruled out. People lie. People sometimes believe what they want to—wishful thinking. People sometimes are unconsciously, unintentionally, unduly careless or permissive, about reports that they want to believe. That includes people who write books. It could sometimes include academic researchers. Remember Professor Rhine at Duke University.
.

you make it sound like your possible answers explain these NDEs away

.
Whoa! I never said anything about explaining NDEs away. I consider them valid. And their implications are meaningful.
.
I was only “explaining away” reports of alleged contravention of physical laws and physical facts that have a long and consistent record of holding.
.

, but they're just the kind of responses that someone would make who never studied NDEs, and who never closely studied the testimonial evidence.

.
I’ve read books of NDE reports, and I consider NDS to be valid, and their information meaningful and useful.

I recommend Proof of Heaven, written by a surgeon, about a NDE that went much farther into death than most other NDEs.
.
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. — Michael Ossipoff

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. 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

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.

If something is (or even if it is not), we can make a word to refer to it.

Furthermore, if something is, it must have properties. Words can be made to refer to these properties.

Q.E.D.

To those that believe the consciousness can survive the death: does the possibility exist of consciousness dying? How, when and why does this happen or not happen? Can consciousness change, and if so, why does it and how drastically and fast can that happen?

Two scenarios seem plausible to me.

1) Reality is created by consciousness, and will therefore always exist. The form is not likely to change. Either reality will adapt so that consciousness continues to exist, or at the end of a life, consciousness enters a period of sleep before awakening to a new reality.

2) We live in a simulated reality, and are tuned in to our bodies by our creators. In this case, either the simulation ends with our body's death, or we are reassigned to a new body, with no retention of our previous assignment.

I’d said:

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.

You wrote:

Sorry I don't always get back to every response.

Always take your time, and just reply when you have time. I’ve been at a few other forums this week, forums about sundials, calendars, and map-projections.

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.

People here don’t always word things that same way, but I feel that much, most, or all of the disagreements here are about how things are said. Someone else here expressed that too. That relates to my claim that my metaphysics is uncontroversial, and that, when describing it, I’m not saying anything that anyone would disagree with.

More about that later, as it relates to what you say below:

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.

I believe that a huge amount of unnecessary apparent disagreement is caused by different people’s different meanings for “real” and “existent”.

“Real” and “exist” get philosophical discussion all fnurled-up.

As I mentioned above, I claim that there’s nothing about my metaphysics that you disagree with.

When I say that, people object:

“It isn’t uncontroversial. I disagree with your claim that your abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals, and your system of inter-referring abstract if-then facts, are real and existent, and that they can be the basis of a real and existent world like the one we live in.”

My answer:

Who said anything about “real” or “existent”?

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.

How sure are you of that?

Atheists and Materialists and Science-Worshippers talking about God don’t have a clue what they’re talking about, or what they mean by “real” or “exist”.

I recommend: Never waste any time arguing or talking with Atheists (about their Atheism, or about Theism).

I’ll discuss with Materialists and Science-Worshippers, when they claim to have an argument against my metaphysics. But I no longer engage them otherwise.

I’d said:

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.

You replied:

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.

We don’t disagree on anything there.

As I’ve said, I believe that past-lives are indeterminate, not just un-knowable.

I believe that there’s reincarnation.

Whatever the reason why we’re in this life (…and I’ve discussed that.), then, if that reason still obtains at the end of this life, then what’s the obvious implication?

Though past-lives are indeterminate, there still might be a hypothetical life-experience possibility-story whose end is consistent with the beginning of this life. “Real”? Not a meaningful question. Maybe in an NDE there’s sometimes insight about that. I don’t deny that possiblility.

We don’t disagree about any of this.

Michael Ossipoff

On the whole, I'm satisfied with my answer to your post. But there are two statements to which I could have replied better, I don't mean for this post to replace or negate my previous reply, most of which I like.

So I'll just re-answer two statements in your post:

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

I claim that metaphysics is a precise and scientific subject, and that there's no need to use words with vague or unknown meaning.

You said that in ordinary conversation we use vague words and understand their use. Sure, but in mathematics and metaphysics, we want to say things unambiguously.

But yes, there's always the problem that no finite dictionary can non-circularly define any of its words. But it's still possible to have less vague meanings in metaphysics than in ordinary everyday conversation.

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.

My previous reply to this had an argumentative, critical tone. I was tired that day, and I answered according to my first impression of that quoted question. In forums that I've been to, when someone asks if God is real, the questioner is never a sincere questioner. He's always a committed Atheist who's looking for an opportunity to name-call someone, and show how much more "scientific" he is.

Also, I want to apologize for lumping all Atheists together with Science-Worshippers. Though most Atheists are also Science-Worshippers, of course at a philosophy forum there are some who aren't.

So let my address your statement about that question in a more objective and civil manner:

I emphatically disagree with the statement:

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.

We most certainly do not.

For one thing, I don't regard God as an element of metaphysics, and so, as i regard the matter, that question isn't a good example for discussing metaphysical word-usage.

I regard religion as meta-metaphysical, not metaphysical. So I feel that all the philosophical attempt to discuss religion is twaddle.

If someone is an Atheist, then religion isn't their cup-of-tea. Fine, but then why try to discuss it, in your framework of metaphysics, or (silliest of all) your physical sciences world-view.

As I've said, "real" and "exist" aren't metaphysically-defined, and I don't use them, to try to distinguish real things from not-real things, in metaphysical discussion.

But, though "real" isn't a meaningful distinction in metaphysics, I use "Reality" to refer to all that is.

In agreement with a website I looked at, I take "Reality" and "Is" to have broad meaning.

That website (unlike me) didn't criticize the use of "exist" in metaphysics. It said that "exist" doesn't apply outside of metaphysics. I agree with that part. The website said that "exist" isn't applicable to God, and I agree. People who think "exist" means something in metaphysics can debate whether such things as a boulder, a kangaroo, a human, or the number 5 "exist".

The question you quoted "Is God real?". is very unclear in its meaning.

We don't know what the questioner means by "God" or "real".

We don't know what he expects the answerer to mean in his answer.

There are Science-Worshippers who define "God" as this physical universe, and believe that this physical universe is objectively "real".

What God is the questioner asking about? The God that Biblical Literalists believe in, and that Atheists so devoutly, loudly and fervently believe in disbelieving in?

You know, that isn't the only meaning meant when religious people refer to God.

Here's a perhaps better way of wording the question:

"If some people with whom you agree regarding this matter speak of God, then, according to how they mean God, then in your opinion, is there God?"

Though this isn't the topic here, and though you didn't ask, I answer "Yes" to that question.

I've explained that statement at slightly greater length at other topic-threads, though it isn't a topic that gives much verbal scope.

But I myself don't usually use the word God unless I'm replying to someone who has used it. ...largely because that would encourage people to hear it as Biblical Literalism.

As I've said elsewhere, I don't regard religious matters to be subjects of assertion, debate, proof, or argument.

Debate, proof and argument are relevant to metaphysics, but not to meta-metaphysics. By "meta-metaphysics", I refer to matters of what is, that aren't covered by metaphysics, or subject to discussion, or description. assertion, proof or debate. (...which of course automatically implies the first statement in this paragraph)

Michael Ossipoff

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

Your posts are so long it's difficult to reply to everything. I don't necessarily believe it's a bad thing, because some of my posts are long too. The problem though, as I read through your post, is that just when I think we have a point of agreement, I see that we are very far apart on some of these issues. The only way I see to even begin to clarify some of our disagreements is to take it one step at a time.

First, as you know I spend a lot of time discussing and studying Wittgenstein, so my view of language comes from him, mostly. Therefore, some of my disagreements with you have to do with the way you're using certain words/concepts. For example, 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.

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, and it's true of many other concepts we use. Vagueness is built into many of our concepts, and philosophers who think that they can come up with exact definitions to explain things are shooting at the moon. This is part of what Wittgenstein was arguing against in much of his work, and I think it's an important point of understanding. This isn't to say that we shouldn't be precise as possible, but that precision isn't always possible or even warranted.

My disagreement is mainly with the idea that metaphysics is a precise subject, not necessarily with the idea that it's can be scientific.

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

Of course everyday conversation is particularly imprecise. That that doesn’t mean that metaphysics must be.

Of course I don’t say that all metaphysicses are precisely stated. But I claim that my presentation of my metaphysics doesn’t have ambiguity. (…other than the fact that no dictionary can non-circularly define any of its words.)

Or, if there’s some part of my description of my metaphysics that’s ambiguous, then that ambiguity, is just a wording-error that could be fixed.

I speak of abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals (hypothetical things). I speak of inter-referring systems of such abstract if-then facts.

I avoid words that I can’t define, such as “exists” and “real”, and make no claims about such matters in metaphysics.

I point out that, inevitably, there’s one such system of inter-referring abstract if-then facts, whose events and relations are those of your experience.

I say that there’s no reason to believe that your experience is other than the life-experience possibility-story consisting of such a system.

We’re used to declarative, indicative grammar, because of its convenience. But I suggest that conditional grammar is what more fundamentally describes our world and experience.

I emphasized that I don’t claim that the elements of some other metaphysics (like Materialism’s concrete, fundamental universe and its things) couldn’t “be”, as a superfluous, unverifiable, unfalsifiable brute-fact, duplicating, and having the same events and relations as, the system of inter-referring abstract if-then facts that I describe.

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.

I can specify Augustus Caesar by saying, “The Roman emperor who was called ‘Augustus Caesar’.

That unambiguously states whom I’m referring to.

My point would be that this is true of the concept God

No way!

Augustus Caesar was a human. In fact, we can specify exactly which human he was.

In contradistinction, there are dramatically different conceptions about God, dramatically different meanings.

As I mentioned, some Science-Worshippers define God as the physical universe.

A Biblical Literalist will tell you his anthropomorphic, allegorical conception.

(I’m not criticizing people who believe the allegory. How wrong are they? If they don’t have it exactly right, and haven’t heard the discussion distinguishing a concrete assertion as distinct from a meta-metaphysical impression, they still have that impression. I say that they’re right about the central matter, though they don’t know that it’s the central matter, and think that the matter is primarily about concrete anthropomorphic assertions.)

That’s very different from being able to specify exactly what species Augustus Caesar belonged to, and exactly which member of that species he was.

And it’s not just a matter of “what”. It’s a matter of what it even “exists” means, or “real” means. We take those things to mean physically real and existent, or some quasi-physical kind of “existence” and “real-ness”, which would widely miss the mark, when it’s a matter of an impression beyond assertion, discussion or description.


Words can’t describe Reality. Does anyone at this forum think they can? …that they can be a perfect match, or even a good match, to Reality?

We’re physical beings in our physical world and our metaphysical world. Many of us know that there’s something very good about what is. Like the insect that you rescue from the kitchen sink, we might know, vaguely know, that there’s good intent behind what is.

Sure, it’s an impression. But is there really a difference between what-is seeming really good, and being really good? So the distinction between an impression and a belief (or even a fact) isn’t really so distinct.
.
I got on that subject to show how vastly, incomparably, different the various conceptions and notions of God can be.

So, if someone says, “Is God real”, we don’t know what he means, and he doesn’t know how to rightly interpret what his answerer means.

That’s why I suggested an alternative wording for the question.

But, if that question is taken to mean the wording that I suggested, then, as I said, I’d answer “Yes”. I broadly define Reality as all that is, though I don’t regard “real” or “existent” as a meaningful distinction among elements of metaphysics.

Michael Ossipoff

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

I haven't been through all comments on this long thread so I hope there's not much doubling up.

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.

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.

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?

Why might we be more "awake" when dead than in deep sleep? Maybe if the brain is more filter than generator, then a broken filter would produce either a distorted or unadulterated consciousness.

All speculative, of course. More "maybes" :)

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

The word anecdotal carries with it the idea of not being reliable, i.e., a story that may or may not be true. However, can we use the word anecdotal when describing millions of stories of the same experience? The answer would depend, but depend on what? It depends on whether the story is consistent, whether the stories come from a variety of sources (different cultures, age groups, different religions, different world views, occurring under a variety of circumstances, whether the stories can be backed up with primary sources, i.e., people who also were there, etc), this would put a higher premium on the stories. Under these circumstance on could say that we have good testimonial evidence. In fact, under these circumstance one could easily argue that this is exactly what it means to have good testimonial evidence. One shouldn't rule out the evidence simply because it doesn't fit a certain narrative or world view.

Consistency is the most important part of these testimonials, and as I've mentioned before there is enough consistency coupled with enough objective verification to assume that there is something much more than just hallucinations taking place.

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

While it's true that there is much that we don't know about how one's consciousness could exist apart from a body, that in itself doesn't mean that what's happening isn't a veridical experience. It's also true that there is much that we don't know about our everyday consciousness, but that doesn't mean we're not conscious, after all there is a huge amount of data that suggests we are. In the same way, there is a huge amount of testimonial evidence that suggests that consciousness survives death, should I be dissuaded because I don't understand all of the mechanistic underpinnings of such an event. I would say yes I should be dissuaded if there wasn't any evidence to support it, but again, there is a huge amount of evidence.

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

Good question, since there is no doubt that our memories play a large part in who we are as persons, and continuity of not only our memories, but also our experiences are extremely important in maintaining the continuity of who we are as individuals.

From my own studies of thousands of these testimonials it is clear that not only do we keep the continuity of our memories, but the stories that people have of encountering their deceased relatives is that the relatives also keep the continuity of their memories and their experiences. In fact, if anything is the case, more of our memories return when having the out-of-body experience.

I don't find any of this speculative at all. I find the argument to be very strong.

For someone new to this thread and does not really have the time to skim through all the posts, what's the usual response to the claim that whilst NDEs may be real phenomena, in the sense that they are genuine mental events that occur when the body temporarily shuts down its usual physiological activity, that they are just species of hallucination and so not evidence for anything except the existence of mental events?

Hallucinations tend to be person relative, i.e., how is it a hallucination if people are seeing the same things. What makes something a hallucination is that your seeing what others don't see, or that others rarely see or experience. However, with NDEs millions of people are consistently seeing the same things (deceased relatives, going through a tunnel, having a life review, beings of light, returning memories, etc.) What makes something a normal experience is that others are seeing the same things (shared experiences).

Moreover, there is objective evidence or confirmation that what those having an NDE are seeing, is confirmed by those not having the experience, but in the vicinity. For example, the doctor and nurses working on them while there is no heart beat or brain function, the kind of procedures that are being performed, the conversations of those near the body, etc. These kinds of visual experiences are the same kinds of visual and auditory experiences that people are having in the same vicinity of the body, which by definition isn't hallucinatory.

OK. Well, regarding the first paragraph, many different people report having similar kinds of dreams - naked at the bus stop/teeth falling out/etc etc - but dreams aren't evidence of anything except dreams.
As to the second paragraph, I suppose someone with a vested interest in a mind-brain identity theory of one kind or another might challenge the claim that there is no brain function in these patients. Perhaps there is no recorded brain function using basic EEG, but what about MRI scanning? Is there recorded evidence of patients reporting NDEs whilst undergoing MRI brain scans that show absolutely zero brain activity? Genuine question - I would be interested to read any links to such cases.

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.

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

While it is true that how we use words tells us something about meaning, and you're right to focus on use, it's also important, though, to understand that use and even context can mislead us. For example, if we take Wittgenstein's point about the beetle-in-the-box, the word beetle is used in a particular way, viz., to point at something in the box; however, because it's used in this way, it doesn't mean it's used correctly. So while it's important to understand that use gives us more information about meaning, it can also be misused. This also points out why people shouldn't try to develop theories of meaning based on use, which by the way, was one of the reasons (I believe) that Wittgenstein was against developing a theory of language.

I don't think we need to rescue the subjective validity of NDEs. In fact, if NDEs were based simply on subjective experiences I would reject them. My point has been that there is good objective evidence to suppose that the experiences are real, and by real I mean that they are just as real as any everyday experience. Remember that any experience has a subjective component. However, if an experience is only subjective, then it would be hard to extract any meaning from the experience. What I mean is, it would be similar to Wittgenstein's beetle-in-the-box. If you're saying that the objective needs to be brought into the experience I agree.

Sorry for the slow reply, Sam, poor organisation on my part.

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. — G

The word anecdotal carries with it the idea of not being reliable, i.e., a story that may or may not be true. However, can we use the word anecdotal when describing millions of stories of the same experience? The answer would depend, but depend on what? It depends on whether the story is consistent, whether the stories come from a variety of sources (different cultures, age groups, different religions, different world views, occurring under a variety of circumstances, whether the stories can be backed up with primary sources, i.e., people who also were there, etc), this would put a higher premium on the stories. Under these circumstance on could say that we have good testimonial evidence. In fact, under these circumstance one could easily argue that this is exactly what it means to have good testimonial evidence. One shouldn't rule out the evidence simply because it doesn't fit a certain narrative or world view. — Sam26

Certainly anecdotal evidence is considered the weakest type in science or in courtroom but, as you suggest, if many witnesses provide similar evidence then credibility improves markedly. Yes, something interesting is definitely going on that's worth investigating, given the profundity of the end-of-life situation.

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.
------------------

Consistency is the most important part of these testimonials, and as I've mentioned before there is enough consistency coupled with enough objective verification to assume that there is something much more than just hallucinations taking place. — Sam26

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.

How long does this subjective reality last and how long is it perceived to last? With time dilation, the few minutes it takes for the brain to die could conceivably result in increasing time dilation that might even feel like eternity.
------------------

... 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

Good question, since there is no doubt that our memories play a large part in who we are as persons, and continuity of not only our memories, but also our experiences are extremely important in maintaining the continuity of who we are as individuals.

From my own studies of thousands of these testimonials it is clear that not only do we keep the continuity of our memories, but the stories that people have of encountering their deceased relatives is that the relatives also keep the continuity of their memories and their experiences. In fact, if anything is the case, more of our memories return when having the out-of-body experience. — Sam26

Just checking the objective (out there) situation, there is physical continuity from before life, to life, to after life which could theoretically be traced back forensically, understood and even reproduced with sufficiently advanced knowledge and technology - hence the various simulation hypotheses. While the memory of everything that has ever happened is still embedded in the fabric of evolving reality (or at least that which hasn't fallen into a black hole), access and organisation of it would seem another matter.

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

The problem Greta (and thanks for the reply) is that any kind of common perceptual experience can be said to "result in common" life experiences, whether end-of-life or not. I think the way to look at these experiences, especially given there are so many, and given the consistency of the experience, is to look at them as we look at any veridical experience, unless their is wide inconsistency. I say wide inconsistency, because any large group of testimonials about any veridical experience will have some inconsistency, that's the nature of testimonial evidence. Another important point about the testimony is that there must be some objective way of examining the testimonial evidence. The point being that even if you have large numbers of testimonials, if it's completely subjective, then there's going to be a huge problem. In the case of NDEs there is plenty of objective evidence from those who were there and saw what happened, so as to be able to corroborate much of the testimony, or at least some of the testimony. This also includes medical records, as well as doctors, nurses, and family members.

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

My research indicates that the senses don't shut down. In fact, people report heightened awareness, which is unusual because the brain is in a state of shutting down. This also goes against a criticism of those who think that these experiences are the result of a common brain experience that occurs when dying (as you suggested above). Again though, how is it that if the brain is shutting down people who are blind can see, or people who have been deaf their whole life can hear. These are experiences of those who have been sensory deprived. And those who haven't been sensory deprived report seeing colors that are not part of our normal color spectrum. Also people report have 360 degree vision, and hearing the conversations of those who are miles away from where their having their NDE.

I've already talked above about the subjective critique.

I don't see the subjective observation as a critique, Sam. I suppose I am differing with your prior point that, if NDEs were about subjective experience then you would not consider them so significant. My point was and is that the subjective at that end point of life effectively becomes the objective in lieu of objective input. It's not as though we have anything else we can do in the outside world at that time.

It may be that the brain is more of a filter and less of a generator than we once believed. My understanding is that, after a period of unusual lucidity, any sensing going stops pertaining to the external world.

Some rigorous experiments were conducted for some time without finding a single case of a dying person identifying things placed too high in the room for them to see without lifting up from the physical body. Not one. I was disappointed because I'd found the anecdotes convincing. Still, they were the results.

As regards heightened senses, witness reports of end-of-life blindsight and lucidity in the blind and senile suggest the brain-as-filter model, with the offending blockages released en route to the brain shutting down (it may well depend which parts of the brain shut down first).

An example of truly heightened senses without filtering is in Jill Bolte Taylor's well known account of her NDE, or at least the waking from it. When she re-emerged, she found all light and sound intolerably intense. That is an example of how brains filter incoming data to make it both comprehensible and, apparently, tolerable.

BTW, just by way of introduction or clarification ... people online have sometimes been unsure as to my agenda or point re: NDEs. I actually don't have an agenda or belief. Rather, I am just curious about NDEs and enjoy chatting about them :)

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

Our perceptions are limited, in the first instance, in determining what is the body one supposedly leaves in order to view it from another point in space, as with an 'outer body experience'.

Perception informs us that our body's outer surface is the skin. However, this is a perception limited the extent to which perception is programmed over countless generations. A program which constructs and pictures - memories which inform the present experience.

It could be that one's body takes up far greater space than the visible one which appears enclosed in the skin.
This is because density is relative to perception. If one mechanically changes one's perceptions of what appears to be dense skin by looking at this layer through a microscope then one will notice there seems to be more space than any dense form of matter.

So effectively this could mean the thing which gives us the picture of bodies and rooms, etc - the viewpoint from which things are perceived, may be able to occasionally act more fluidly by changing it's position within a body of which most of it is invisible to regular perception (without something like the mechanical aid of a microscope.

So if one "leaves their body" they may have merely experienced a different location within a much larger invisible aspect of body from which to view the denser perceivable example of it.

So, for example, one's body, although mostly invisible to our limited perception, could be as large as a block of 3 houses.

So some event may occur which could jolt the habitual viewpoint location out and away into another location in space only then to view objects, one object of which being the usual perceived and apparent skin encapsulated form we had merely become habitually accustomed to being the entire form of the individual body.

It could be that one's body takes up far greater space than the visible one which appears enclosed in the skin. — raza

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. If you're using NDEs as examples I don't see it. One reason is that people are seeing their bodies from a 3rd person perspective - they're looking at their bodies from a place in space quite separate from their bodies. Also, even if the bodies energy extends further out from the body than is commonly thought, how is it that people having an NDE seem to move much much further than what you're speculating about? People have had NDEs where they're looking at Earth from a place in space, your idea wouldn't account for such an experience. For your account to be reasonable we would need some evidence that the body is larger than what we observe, and even if it is, it still wouldn't discredit these experiences.

I feel that NDE is not enough evidence to support claims of life after death. I have not read much about NDE as such, but it sound to me some sort of illusory effect of mind. Anyhow, we never hear about any life returning to this world after their death. It only once supposed to have happened and recorded in the Bible, but it is just writings about it. No body has seen or heard returned Jesus in this world.

Well, you have to look at the argument, which I give on the first page of this thread about half way down. What you're doing is giving an opinion, which is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't address the argument. Read the posts between me and Fdrake.

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

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.

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

Auras could conceivably be an example of a larger area of body - a more subtle, finer (of matter) ethereal area.

I have witnessed these 20 feet above people where the atmospheric conditions allow. Maybe we extend beyond those out into space.

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

I see your point, but how would that explain the experiences people are having in an NDE? Let me put it this way, there is no evidence that the extension of our body in the ways you describe, are extensions that would give rise to these kinds of experiences. And I agree that we don't perceive all that we are, in fact, I think NDEs give evidence that we are more than this body.