and yet I still fail to see the relevance of NDEs in relation to the question of mortality — sime
Because a large percentage of NDEs and pre-death or death-bed visions are interactions with the deceased. Therefore, one can conclude based not only on this, but given all the other points that have been made, that we are much more than simply this body (the brain, etc). — Sam26
In trying to revisit some theories relative to EM fields of consciousness : — 3017amen
As a matter of fact, Wittgenstein plays an important part in my epistemology. Consider where I talk about the many uses of the word know, which is taken from the PI and especially OC. — Sam26
When you argue for the possibility of evidence of consciousness surviving the body, what is your understanding of a proper-name? — sime
where are you with the mind-body/materialist problem? — 3017amen
There is a great deal of testimonial evidence of alien encounters. All that have been investigated have been discovered false, none verified as true. More significantly, the probability of an advanced, intelligent civilization within a navigable distance, who were motivated to make the long journey, is extremely low. Conclusions:
1.there have been zero alien encounters
2. Testimonial evidence is not a reliable means of establishing that an anomolous type of event can occur. — Relativist
If something is believed to be impossible, what sort of evidence would be needed to undercut that belief?Certainly not testimonial evidence. — Relativist
Willingness to listen isn't the issue. The issue is epistemelogical:Can't convince someone who isn't willing to listen, that's for sure. Maybe ponder some more on your belief that "the probability of an advanced, intelligent civilization within a navigable distance, who were motivated to make the long journey, is extremely low". — leo
The issue is entirely epistemological: do reports of OBEs constitute adequate evidence to justify belief that OBEs are actual?Believing something is impossible, and something really being impossible, are two different things. — Sam26
consciousness survives the body.
— Sam26
This I don't see.
Death is the most extreme trauma one's body can suffer. What you have are reports of living people who experienced this extreme trauma.
What you do not, and presumably cannot, have are reports from disembodied consciousnesses.
I understand that the claim is that, perhaps for several minutes, someone's consciousness persisted during a period when their body met one or another definition of death. But you do not, and presumably cannot, have reports from people made during this period. You can only have the reports of those who were revived.
Those who were revived suffered extreme trauma. Isn't the most natural assumption that such a traumatic experience would leave traces? Wouldn't a neuroscientific explanation be the most natural? — Srap Tasmaner
Does the conclusion follow, that is, I'm interested in knowing where the argument fails, if it fails at all.
Before I put forth the argument, which is based on testimonial evidence, I want us to clarify several points.
First, that testimonial evidence is a valid way of justifying one's conclusions, and moreover, one's beliefs. Most of what we know comes from the testimony of others. Thus, it's a way of attaining knowledge.
Second, since the argument will be based on testimonial evidence, and given that testimonial evidence is notoriously weak, what criteria makes testimonial evidence strong?
Third, if testimonial evidence is of something out of the ordinary, say extraterrestrials or something mystical, then it would seem to follow that the evidence would require a higher standard than what is generally required of good testimonial evidence.
Fourth, since the argument falls under the category of metaphysics, how do we understand what is meant by reality? I'm a later Wittgensteinian when it comes to understanding words, that is, I don't believe there is a definition or theory that will cover every use of certain word (for example, words like real or reality). However, I don't believe Wittgenstein was correct in his assumption that the mystical can only be shown (prayer and meditation for example) and not talked about in terms of what's true or false. Wittgenstein believed this in his early and later philosophy, which is one of the reasons why he was against arguments for the existence of God. Although he was sympathetic to man's reach for the mystical, which is why he didn't agree with the logical positivists.
In the next post I will describe what I believe to be the ingredients of strong testimonial evidence. I'm interested in all comments, but I'm especially interested in the comments of those of you who have a strong background in philosophy, and also in the related sciences.
I will present the argument after we clarify these foundational issues, at least provide some clarification. — Sam26
I don't even trust personal testimonies when it comes to deciding the veracity of the humdrum theories of behavioural psychology, let alone for deciding the veracity of pseudo-scientific mystical hypotheses. — sime
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.