Life ending at death is less of a scientific matter and more of a semantic matter. At least initially. — bert1
That depends on how one defines "death". True death is not the cessation of cardiac function, and the flat line on the EKG monitor; such hearts are regularly caused to resume their functioning with the application of electric impulse to the torso. True death has occurred when the brain has died, and cellular metabolism has ceased. You are correct in stating that semantics fail us here... — Michael Zwingli
Doctors often use the word death in reference to those who have been brought back, it's perfectly acceptable. — Sam26
with reference to an NDE, it's a near death experience, obviously you didn't die in the absolute sense. — Sam26
I'm not too keen on using the word soul in reference to NDEs. I prefer consciousness, but I know what you mean. I'm not religious, so I prefer not to use that word. — Sam26
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. — Michael Zwingli
Actually the awareness of those who have an NDE is not dreamlike. In fact, most of them say that it's more real than what they normally experience. It's a heightened awareness. — Sam26
you would expect, especially if the brain/body was shutting down, that reality would be fading, not becoming more vivid. — Sam26
I'm not too keen on using the word soul in reference to NDEs. I prefer consciousness, but I know what you mean. I'm not religious, so I prefer not to use that word. — Sam26
If panpsychism is real, and I can't see why it's not, then consciousness is eternal. Even death is a kind of consciousness. — Thunderballs
I simply see no evidence for an "anima mundi" — Michael Zwingli
What about you feeling, percept, your emotions, thoughts, ideas, dreams. You are aware of all. How can this be if all matter were just matter? Devoid of content? — Thunderballs
All reason and emotion are the product of the intellectual and affective dimensions of my mind, — Michael Zwingli
Don't yòu think it's the other way round? — Thunderballs
"Someone said so" is not in general an adequate justification for an inference or belief.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. — Sam26
The credibility of the witness. The plausibility of the claim.Second, since the argument will be based on testimonial evidence, and given that testimonial evidence is notoriously weak, what criteria makes testimonial evidence strong? — Sam26
Something along those lines would seem fitting.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. — Sam26
It seems to me that when we use the word "reality" as a noun, with a capital R so to speak, we mean something like this: the whole world, all existence, whatever is in fact the case for all time and all place, or whatever "dimensions" or parameters we should name alongside or instead of time and place, regardless of whether it is known or unknown, knowable or unknowable.Fourth, since the argument falls under the category of metaphysics, how do we understand what is meant by reality? — Sam26
I call myself a skeptic in the (Pyrrhonian) spirit of Sextus. I find a kindred view shifting in and out of focus when I read Wittgenstein's On Certainty. A few months ago I discovered this is an active niche in the academy.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. — Sam26
"Someone said so" is not in general an adequate justification for an inference or belief. — Cabbage Farmer
Did I at any point suggest that you had made such a claim? I'm surprised to find you so quick to interpret such a straight answer as if it implied a disagreement.Did at any point I make such a claim? — Sam26
It's my custom to enter a thread by replying directly to the original post. Would you like to discuss this practice here, or perhaps in some other place? I'd prefer instead to restrict our discussion to the substantive themes you've raised, without getting bogged down in frivolous discourses on manners and protocols.You didn't pay close attention to what I said over the course of this thread. — Sam26
I agree that demonstrated expertise is one of the factors that typically supports the credibility of a witness. I agree that many common-sense beliefs about the world are supported by testimony. I agree, and stated in my initial response, that a lot depends on a judge's ability "to sort reliable testimony from unreliable testimony."You are correct, that "someone saying this or that" is not in itself always sufficient to justify a belief. However, it depends on context, if you're in a class being taught by an expert in biology, that can be a justification for believing what the person is saying. Much of what we believe comes in the form of testimony from trusted people. When you read a book by an expert in a particular field of study, this is a form of testimonial evidence. You certainly aren't involved in the experiments of scientists, so you take their word for it. Obviously not all testimony is worth considering. It's a matter of knowing the difference between kinds of testimonial evidence. — Sam26
I offered this as a clarification of a point you had made:at some threshold the implausibility of the claim begins to undermine the credibility of the witness. As we approach that threshold, we become increasingly disposed to discount the claim, absent something in addition to support it. — Cabbage Farmer
Here again, my suggestion was offered as a clarification, not as a disagreement, my friend.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 — Sam26
If panpsychism is real, and I can't see why it's not, then consciousness is eternal. — Thunderballs
I mean, do you agree that the implausibility of a claim may tend to undermine the credibility of the witness who makes the claim? Do you agree that "extraordinary cases" like those you indicated typically involve claims that are considered prima facie "implausible", regardless of the general credibility and expertise of the witness who makes the claim; and that for this reason, something in addition to that testimony is typically required to support the claim in question? — Cabbage Farmer
I'm not one for deadlines. And I like space between turns. No worries.Sorry it took so long to respond. — Sam26
I agree. It's on the basis of that impression that I've sought to begin by getting a clearer view of where our respective outlooks on the concept of testimony may align or diverge. It's not clear to me to yet what either of us has to say on the subject. I have my own dispositions in the matter, but haven't spent much time sorting them out.I think we generally agree, with some clarifications, or maybe some disagreement. — Sam26
The point I was considering is that the implausibility of a claim tends to undermine the credibility of the witness who makes that claim. If the expert can't provide enough support to make the claim seem plausible, but persists in asserting the claim, this tends to count against the expert's credibility. The witness must be able to provide some reasonable account of the justification or basis for the claim, and that account must stand up to scrutiny. If it stands up to scrutiny, it's plausible. If it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, then on what grounds would the expert affirm it?Yes, I do agree that generally "...the implausibility of a claim tends to undermine the credibility" of that claim. — Sam26
Do you mean something like this:However, I don't think that because something seems implausible, that it follows that it is. — Sam26
What's the right sort of balance?Many discoveries have been overturned in science because people considered what most find implausible. So, there has to be the right kind of balance, we tend to get to invested in certain worldviews, which can impede new discoveries. — Sam26
Something's got to make the claim seem reasonable enough to warrant the time and other resources we spend considering it. There's something like a halting principle that disposes us to constrain our investigations to a range of reasonable alternatives -- in every case a quite narrow range compared to the infinite range of conceivable alternatives.I do agree that more is needed than just a claim, i.e., we need some objective way to verify claims that seem implausible. — Sam26
I have read it. It seems our views on the evaluation of testimony may diverge as your argument proceeds. I hope to address that argument in subsequent comments.I'm not sure you read my argument which was given further down on the first page, but I go into detail about what is needed to support my inductive argument, i.e., what drives good testimonial evidence. — 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.