If I was young again I would pursue these ideas and studies. — Sam26

Ya, that's about right. lol

:ok:

One of the mistakes some people make in defining consciousness is that they want to define it by looking inward, i.e., our subjective experience. However, how can I say someone else is conscious based on this kind of subjective experience? After all, I'm only aware of my own consciousness, of my own inner experiences. It's important to bring in a Wittgensteinian idea to get clear on this mistake, i.e., that words get their meaning in public settings, not by pointing to an inner thing (beetle in a box problem). However, this doesn't mean that there isn't something inner going on, it just means that meanings don't attach to inner subjective objects. But concepts do reflect inner thoughts, and this is different from saying that concepts don't derive meaning from our inner world of thinking.

Wittgenstein doesn't deny our inner subjective life. One can think of it this way, when I use the word cup, meaning isn't derived from the object (the referent), although the object can be used to help us understand how to use the word in linguistic social settings. So, it's not as though the object has no role in our language, so we want to be careful to not eliminate our talk about the object. The tendency is for us to associate the meaning of a concept with the object, this is where we go wrong. It's a difficult habit to break, because it's so pervasive.

The point of the above remarks is to say that our inner life isn't some illusion, as some would suggest. There are those materialists who believe that if it's not an illusion (the illusion being the sense of self that seems to be non-material or metaphysical), then we can't explain it in terms of the material. Their point is that that sense of self can be explained in material terms, so they write off the metaphysical awareness by saying it's an illusion.

The first mistake is to call our inner awareness an illusion. Of course we can be mistaken in thinking it reflects some metaphysical existence (although I don't think it's a mistake based on the testimonial evidence of NDEs). Illusions only make sense against the backdrop of the real, of reality. So illusions give the appearance of something real. In other words, they cover reality with a blanket that hides the real. For example, the illusion of seeing a women cut in half by a magician. We can only say it's an illusion because we know that the women isn't being cut in half, although it appears so. So, we need to ask ourselves, what is the illusion of? Am I not having these inner experiences? Who is having the illusion, if not me? If I were to uncover reality would I find that someone else is having the real experience of self? Supposedly, if we were to uncover reality in this situation, we would find mechanistic explanations of consciousness or self. So, what the mechanistic or materialists want us to believe is that brain produces in us the illusion of consciousness or self. If someone is having an illusion, it presupposes a consciousness, i.e., it presupposes the real, so who is having the illusion? However, they might argue that it's not all an illusion, just the part where we disagree with them, the metaphysical part. I think part of the problem is the misuse of the word illusion. Just as the word hallucination is misused in describing NDEs. At the very least the argument that consciousness or the self is an illusion is spurious.

Another mistake is in defining consciousness as some thing in the brain, i.e., you're not going to be able to point to some process and say, "This is consciousness." Of course you can get around this by saying that certain brain processes produce consciousness. I can't make any sense out of material processes producing the feeling I get from seeing a beautiful sunset.

That said, I wouldn't use any of these arguments to argue against the materialist worldview. I'd use my inductive argument already given in this thread, it's much stronger.

Anyway, just some thoughts.

I wanted to give an updated version of the Greyson's NDE scale (http://www.newdualism.org/nde-papers/Greyson/Greyson-The%20Journal%20of%20Nervous%20and%20Mental%20Disease_1983-171-369-375.pdf), which helps to develop the internal consistency of the NDE reports. The original research was done in the early 80's by Greyson. Greyson's scale was updated and reassessed in 2020 (https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploads/sites/360/2020/11/Nov-2020-NDE-C-CC.pdf). This updated version continues to point to the internal consistency of the NDEs, which is important to the argument I make in this thread. It is also important to the discussion I had with @fdrake.

Congrats! :up:
How have you managed to create such a good and successful discussion with such a difficult topic?
I just crated a topic with the title "You are not your body!" 3 days ago, which is much simpler and more "digestible", and half of the place in here tried to devour me! :grin: It seems that I offended them! :grin:
Most of them don't even believe consciousness exists but it is only a concept or illusion! And in your topic, it is taken even to a higher level!
Thank you for that, because, after I am about 3 months in TPF and started to think that I was in the wrong place!

It's a difficult topic to discuss for various reasons. I'm currently arguing this in https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/posting.php?mode=quote&f=2&p=394748 . Many of the responses I get aren't arguments at all, there just opinions based on misinformation. Part of the problem is that some people think it opens the door to some religious belief, and it may. However, I haven't found that one needs to believe anything religious in order to believe that consciousness is not dependent on brain activity. To be honest I don't care where it leads. I want to know the truth, and that's it, period. People get wrapped up in their worldviews, which locks them into their ideologies. This may not be true of everyone, but it's true of many.

just opinions based on misinformation — Sam26

Thank you for responding!
Yes, this is usual the case based on the the replies I get myself. But I thing the problem is more severe: this misinformation cannot be "repaired": it gets stuck in the mind and "acts" as a prejudice!

I haven't found that one needs to believe anything religious in order to believe that consciousness is not dependent on brain activity — Sam26

There's certainly no need for that! I have never connected consciousness to religion. It's a purely philosophical subject (e.g. Philosopy of Mind). So, this idea belongs to the "misinformation" that you are mentioning.

People get wrapped up in their worldviews, which locks them into their ideologies — Sam26

Exactly. I have mentioned this quite a few times (with different words, of course) and it is also what I said above about "prejudice". If misinformation is an obtacle to knowledge, prejudice is a huge obtacle!

When I'll find time, I'll read comments from people and yourself on your very interesting topic!

@Sam26, please correct me if I misstate or oversimplify your argument. I believe you to suggest that if a person who had a NDE seemed to experience hovering over his body in a hospital room, surveying the scene and hearing himself pronounced dead by a medical doctor, that this actually happened in fact...that an incorporeal part of his person actually had said experience. Am I to suppose, then, that if tonight while I sleep, I dream vividly of being in Kathmandu (Nepal), that subsequently when I wake up tomorrow morning, I will have a valid claim that some part of my being, my "soul", my "spirit", my "ghost", or my "astral body", call it what you will, will have actually been there in reality?

Of course not, dreams, are just that, dreams, they're not happening in objective reality, but that's not what's happening in an NDE. People who are having an NDE are saying they saw and heard X,Y, and Z, and then it's being verified or corroborated by doctors, nurses, friends, and family. These kinds of observations are easy to check. You verify what actually happened, did the doctor do X, did the nurse actually say Y, did the conversation in the next room actually happen with friends and family. If they did, then it's not dreamlike or a hallucination, it's what really happened. How do we normally check the statements of others if we want to make sure the statement reflects reality? We check with others, we verify, we corroborate. If there wasn't an objective means to verify these experiences, then yes it would be more similar to a dream. However, you would then have to ask yourself, "Why are people having the same dream?"- or the same kind of dream? This would be harder to defend without the objective component.

allow me to enunciate that which was suggested by my prior post, my belief about what is happening during a NDE. I believe that it is quite analogous to a dream: mental activity which occurs during a state of unconsciousness or semi-consciousness. The difference in the case of a NDE, however, is that the event is not occurring in the dark and quiet of one's bedroom at night, but rather in an environment wherein there is a great deal of sensory stimulation, most notably auditory, occurring while this unconscious mental activity is happening. Such stimuli are percieved by the unconscious person, and subsequently incorporated into this type of "dream occurrence" which has come to be called a "near death experience". I am sure that many of us have had the experience of somebody talking to us while we sleep, and later upon waking, being able to recall their words, no?

As a matter of fact, even if there exists such a thing as the human "soul"/"spirit", it would naturally be expected to remain "within" the body throughout an event called a "near death experience", and only exit the body following the "death experience"...the death of the body, do you not think? The only possible resolutions of this problem are that either we must rename "near death experiences" to reflect the actual death of the subject, or we must recognize that no soul or spirit has left the body during the time in question, for either there is death or there is not, and death must be held to be irrevocable, despite the Catholic Catechism's insistence on the eventual "resurrection of the body" (not to pick on the Church, but I was raised Catholic). If no soul has ever left the body, which situation is suggested by the term "near death experience", my "stimulated dream thesis" would appear to be the only apparent explanation.

Before I put forth the argument — Sam26

I rather watch a video. :smirk:

https://youtu.be/UwLN7HVr28o

dogmatically they cling to the claim even when everyone else thinks they're nuts might be a good place to start, especially when they stand to lose something by saying so and have nothing to gain. — MikeL

They do have something to lose, something very precious to them...their (apparent) delusions about living for ever and ever, and thus having to confront their own mortality, ever the horror of mankind.

their (apparent) delusions about living for ever and ever, — Michael Zwingli

There's also the concept of an unembodied mind:

My my,posters are awfully dogmatic about life ending at material death.
One wonders at the "scientific" evidence for such "certainty"?

However, how can I say someone else is conscious based on this kind of subjective experience? After all, I'm only aware of my own consciousness, of my own inner experiences. — Sam26

By inference. We presume that others are just like ourselves. I think it’s a perfectly valid presumption. ‘I know how you must feel…’ ‘I can’t imagine how you must feel…’ and other such statements are intelligible statements.

There's also the concept of an unembodied mind: — Wheatley

Functionally, I cannot discern the difference between this and "soul", "spirit", "ghost", etc. (BTW, yom tov)

My my,posters are awfully dogmatic about life ending at material death.
One wonders at the "scientific" evidence for such "certainty"? — Ambrosia

I know only what I have experienced in this world. It is he who makes the assertion that there is an incorporeal aspect of my being which can live and experience reality apart from, and after the death of, my body who has assumed (thereby) the burden of providing evidence therefore. I do not claim this to be utterly impossible. My sole assertion is that I have no evidence for these things, and am awaiting substantial evidence therefore...

I have never experienced zero conciousness. Its never been proved.
Nor has anyone ever experienced zero conciousness.

You are speaking from outside your experience. And according to your scientific method you cannot prove non existence.

I do not recall speaking of "zero consciousness", but rather remember "unconsciousness" and "semi-consciousness", both of which I have experienced often. As for proving "non-existence"...I got nothin'.

So material death for you involves semi conciousness or unconsciousness and not zero conciousness?

not at all, death is the end of consciousness. What did I write to make you infer thusly?

So you know nothing about "non conciousness" yet you ascribe it to bodily death.

Pure materialist fiction.

no, I know nothing about "zero consciousness" as an English psychological, philosophical or scientific lemma. The same applies to "non-consciousness". What I ascribe to death (for myself, there is only one type...no adjective necessary) is the end of consciousness.

Look, this seems to be upsetting you somewhat. As I have indicated elsewhere, I am loath to disabuse people of their closely held eschatological beliefs, as so doing has the potential of being psychologically damaging. I would not have this conversation "on the street" unless prompted. If you feel that you are being challenged thusly, perhaps we should break this dialogue off. I do not want to be responsible for causing anybody psychic pain. At the same time, you must realize that this is a philosophical forum, where the participants must feel free to discuss challenging issues forthrightly.

Are you for real? I eat materislists like you up for breakfast!!!

Your compassion is touching but wrong fella mister!

Ain't shit you could say to upset me!

Anyway,why you so sure of the end of conciousness when you have zero experience of it?

Major unempirical and pretentious no?

Are you for real? I eat materislists like you up for breakfast!!!

Your compassion is touching but wrong fella mister! — Ambrosia

Then please, Ambrosia, desist with the emotionally charged language...

Anyway,why you so sure of the end of conciousness when you have zero experience of it? — Ambrosia

I have seen dead people; indeed, I have killed people (combat veteran) in a horrible and definitive manner (as a gunner on an M1A1 tank), and know that said victims have had no consciousness post-mortem. In addition, I have never seen anyone I know to have died regain any level of consciousness.

Regarding being "so sure", I am sure of nothing. The "certainty" you have suspected me of above does not exist. I only have beliefs based upon my experiential evidence and reason, and claim certainty about nothing.

Rationalists have a tendency to overlook and equivocate the vastly different empirical criteria used for defining unconsciousness of the first-person, as opposed to when defining the unconsciousness of another human being.

In the latter case, a human being is publicly defined as 'being unconscious' according to behavioural criteria, such as bodily reflexes failing to respond to stimulation. But in the former case, when we speak of personal unconsciousness of ourselves, we aren't using a public behavioural definition and we only speak of personal unconsciousness in the past tense. Ironically a person makes this past-self judgement according to observations they presently make.

For example, a person wakes up in the morning from a deep-sleep and concludes that they didn't exist during the previous night , due to not remembering anything over that period. But how does the person determine that they don't remember anything about the previous night? They ask themselves what they remember and they observe that "nothing" comes to mind, but "nothing" here means that whatever is presently sensed or comes to mind is considered to be irrelevant to the question. Yet this purported 'evidence' for past-personal unconsciousness in effect constitutes present empirical criteria for defining what is meant by past-personal unconsciousness, which might suggests to an empiricist that the concepts of past-personal-unconsciousness and present personal consciousness aren't ontological opposites.

I am not a person who dreams often or vividly (curiously, to myself). I most often remember nothing from whatever mental activity has occurred during my hours of sleep. Even so, I have never considered the preposterous notion that I did not exist during those hours of sleep. People while sleeping are unconscious, yet still maintain a level of consciousness. As I have noted, I have had the experience of someone saying something to me while I was fast asleep, and being able to recite their words to them when I have woken hours later. In like manner, I have experienced that situation in a case when I was the speaker to one sleeping. In addition, one, at least I, can readily percieve the low level of consciousness in an unconscious person, like a sleeper, who is yet alive. The dead, however, present as being utterly devoid of consciousness. This goes beyond reflex action or stimulatory response...one can tell when the brain has died, and cellular metabolism has ceased. From this state, this "death", there appears in my experience to be no regaining of any level of consciousness whatsoever.

Even so, I have never considered the preposterous notion that I did not exist during those hours of sleep. — Michael Zwingli

I'm curious, what strikes you as preposterous about that?

By inference. We presume that others are just like ourselves. I think it’s a perfectly valid presumption. ‘I know how you must feel…’ ‘I can’t imagine how you must feel…’ and other such statements are intelligible statements. — Wayfarer

I've been wanting to make a tread about inferences to other minds for ages.

what strikes you as preposterous about that? — bert1

Simply the idea that I might pop in and out of existence so readily, for one thing. More significantly, that the objective reality of my existence should be influenced by the subjective reality of my perception thereof. Reality, by which I mean objective reality, is stronger than perception. Perception, after all, is a fickle and imperfect instrument, and so undependable; such is why we can never know anything with absolute certainty.