Your logic and philosophy is really bad Sam! — Nickolasgaspar

:up:

:eyes: Well, sir, "alien abduction" videos are more my jam; "haunted house" "astral projection" "reincarnation" or "perpetual motion machine" Youtubes not so much.

Anyway.

Resuscitation is not resurrection. "NDE" presupposes resurrection and yet none of the claimants, in fact, have been resurrected. Brain-death has not occurred until it is irreversible; ergo the "D" in "NDE" is nothing but an ad hoc ex post facto confabulation (à la false memory) of some non-ordinary mental state(s) of an unresurrected, still-living brain. "See the light," blind man. :yawn:

This is another good video of an MD (she was an atheist) having an NDE. Much of what she experiences confirms my own conclusions on this subject. As for God and religion, although I don't believe any religion has it correct, there is something that people experience while having an NDE that could fit the bill of God (or source, or consciousness, or mind). However, it's much different than our human understanding of God, especially any religious understanding of God.

There are some that think that Sam's getting old and he wants to latch onto these beliefs as a way of having hope, nothing could be further from the truth. I've believed in these experiences for over 45 years, so it has very little to do with getting older. It's just that I've been studying these experiences more since I've been retired, but they have always interested me.

If you have even a slight interest in these experiences this is a good video to listen to.

Answers

(Answers to Life’s Most Perplexing Questions)

That’s right, I’m going to give you the answers to many of the questions that are asked about life and this reality. I know it seems rather arrogant to think that I have some of the answers, but it comes from much of the evidence that I’ve given in this thread, and much more evidence that I haven’t given. Much of what I answer goes against the standard model of reality, including many of the models of consciousness, and who we are as individuals.

These questions and answers are in no particular order, and some of these answers are only partially answered. No one has the complete answers to all these questions.

I’m writing the answers as they come to mind.

1) What is this reality?
We are in a kind of holographic simulation.

2) Who created this reality?
We participated in creating this reality.

3) Is there a God?
There is no God as most religions think of God, but there probably is something akin to the concept. To say that God is love is probably closest to the truth. However, most religions distort this picture with other beliefs.

4) What is at the base of reality?
Consciousness or mind is at the base of reality. We are all part of that consciousness, and yet we also maintain our individuality.

5) Where is our origin?
Our home is definitely not here in this simulation, it’s in the base reality and the immediate surrounding reality or realities that are not part of any simulation, of which there are many (many simulations).

6) Do we choose to come here?
Yes! We chose to come here. In fact, we plan much of our lives. Moreover, we choose our parents, we choose the kind of body we’ll have, and we choose many of the hardships we’ll experience. By the way, this is why there is no problem of evil, because we know what we are getting into before we come. Evil is a construct of this reality, and probably other created realities, but it’s not part of the base reality.

7) Why did we come here?
There is no one answer to this question, but there are several very general answers to this question. We come here to have human experiences, and to learn from these experiences. We come not only for what we will learn from the experiences, but what we will help others to learn from the experiences. Much of this is still a mystery. We definitely don’t come here to have fun. The idea that the goal of life is to be happy is misguided. Life is meant to be a struggle. It’s meant, at least for most, to be difficult and challenging. The struggle is mostly with yourself. There is much more that can be said about this, but I’m trying to keep the answers short.

8) Who are we?
One thing is for sure, we are much greater beings than we realize. We are beings with great knowledge and power, not gods, but much greater than this human version of ourselves.

9) Is death anything to fear?
Definitely not, you are simply returning to your home or your original form.

10) Why don’t I remember who I am?
Probably because it would interfere with your learning experience here, and with the learning
experiences of others.

11) Do we choose when we will die, that is, is there a set time to die?
Yes. Although it’s not set in stone, it’s somewhat flexible for some. For others, when your time is up, it’s up, it’s agreed upon before you come here.

12) Can prayer alter someone’s death time?
In some cases, yes, in most cases, no.

13) Can prayer alter your life?
Yes, but as in the case of praying to save someone’s life, it just depends on what agreements were made before coming here. Also, you may only have access to a certain number of interventions in this life through prayer. On the other hand, no amount of prayer will change some things.

14) Will AI become conscious?
No. Consciousness is not composed of the material of this simulated reality. The only way something in this reality can become conscious, is if consciousness enters it. The same way we enter this body.

15) Can we access other realities?
Yes. There are several ways, including NDEs, DMT, mushrooms, meditation, the other side communicating to us, and deathbed visions.

16) Do animals have an afterlife?
Yes.

17) Do we sometimes see our dead loved ones?
Yes. In fact, this is probably why the disciples thought Jesus rose from the dead. They had visions after his death.

18) Do our loved ones know what’s happening here?
Yes, they are always with you. Remember we are all part of the same consciousness, so they have access to everything that’s going on. We don’t have the same access because we are a dumbed-down version of ourselves with very limited knowledge.

19) Are there children in the afterlife?
No. We only experience being a child in this simulated reality, or some other simulated reality.

20) Have we experienced other lives?
Yes. Some of us have experienced many lives in this reality and in other realities.

21) Are we eternal beings?
Yes. We probably will always exist.

22) Does evil exist?
Yes and no. In this reality evil surely exists as a concept describing certain actions, but in ultimate reality there is no evil, no sin, no damnation, no devil, and no demons. No harm can ultimately come to you. Sure, you can experience pain and harm here, but it’s just temporary, a function of this reality; and much of what you experience in terms of pain and harm is something you knew about before coming.

23) Is what people see in an NDE the afterlife?
Yes and no. In other words, what people see in their NDE is sort of an in between, viz., where we go after we immediately die. It’s like going to the train station, you’re between destinations. It’s a place you can return from, i.e., you can still be connected to your body while being there. There is a further boundary, where if you cross that boundary, you can’t return, it’s often encountered in NDES. It’s the place where you are completely disconnected from your body. People often see a silver cord connecting them to their bodies. Once the cord is broken, then you are probably severed from this simulation. It’s like being unplugged. If you’re still plugged in, there’s time to return to the body and continue living.

24) Do miraculous healings occur?
Yes. Some healings are seen in the recovery of people who have had serious illnesses that led to their NDE. In fact, sometimes doctors are guided by beings on the other side to help in their recovery.

25) Are the people in my life, viz., family, friends, enemies, and acquaintances part of who I’m supposed to interact with while I’m here?
Yes. Many, if not all of them, were part of the plan before coming here. We all play a kind of role with each other, but it’s an important role. Even those whom you detest are playing a role, for you, and for them.

26) What about suicide?
If you take your life, you are interrupting the agreement you made before coming here. Moreover, you may have to come back and live your life all over again with many of the same problems, possibly worse problems. So, suicide is not an answer to escaping the problems of life.

27) What is the most important part of life?
Love, it’s at the heart of reality. It’s not like the religious love you hear about, viz., I love you, but if you reject me, you’re going to hell forever.

28) Do we have free will?
Yes, but limited free will. There are also those things that are deterministic, i.e., those things that are determined before you come into this life.

29) Does time pass differently in the afterlife?
Yes. What may be only a few minutes or a few seconds here, maybe much longer there. Time passes, seemingly, at a faster rate there, or at the very least it passes in a non-linear way. The only way there would be no time is if we’re experiencing everything at once, including being everywhere at once. I’m not sure if that’s possible.

30) Does coming here help us in some way?
This question is related to the question, “Why do we choose to come here?” It helps us to advance in experiential learning or knowledge in ways we won’t understand until we return home. My speculation is that we also add to the experiential knowledge of the core consciousness, and that experiential knowledge can be accessed by all of us. There is no end to what we can experience. If the core mind can imagine it, it can create it, and then, we can experience it.

31) Are all realities as difficult as this reality?
No. Some realities are probably fun, and some realities are probably even more difficult to experience than this reality. If you wanted to experience hell you could probably do that. However, whether you do is up to you. Some people are warned about coming here. They’re told that it’s very difficult. It’s not for the faint of heart.

32) Last question is speculative, but very possible. Is everyone you see in this reality real? In other words, are some human bodies just NPCs?
If this reality is an advanced holographic program of sorts, then it’s very possible that not everyone you see is real or conscious. Maybe there are billions of NPCs. If this is true, and it may be, then it’s very possible to create AI that appears conscious in almost every way, but in fact is not really conscious. Maybe the only way to know would be to look at reality from outside the program.
I’ve just answered many of life’s mysteries, but this is just the tip of the iceberg, or maybe just an atom on the tip of the iceberg.

I'm going to make some final comments about the argument presented in this thread. Those of you who have studied propositional logic are familiar with the criteria of a good deductive argument and the criteria of a good inductive argument. The criteria of a good deductive argument are the following:

1) validity
2) soundness
3) cogency

The criteria of a good inductive argument are the following:

1) number
2) variety
3) scope of the conclusion
4) truth of the premises
5) cogency

The argument in this thread was inductive and followed the criteria of a good inductive argument, i.e., except one. The argument isn't going to be cogent for everyone. Cogency simply means the argument is known to be true to the person or persons that hear the argument. In other words, just because an argument follows logically and you know the premises are true, it doesn't follow that everyone who hears the argument is going to know what you know. So, it won't be cogent for them.

A friend of mine gives the following example (Dr. Byron I. Bitar):

Premise 1: The base of a souffle is a roux.
Premise 2: This salmon dish is a souffle.
Conclusion: Hence, the base of this salmon dish is a roux.

Here's the problem in a nutshell. Even though the deductive argument above is sound and the conclusion follows, that doesn't mean that everyone who hears the argument will understand that the conclusion follows. You have to know what a roux and a souffle is in order for the argument to be compelling for you. If you don't know the concepts (or enough about the concepts), then you won't know if the argument is a good argument. The person who hears the argument has to know the premises are true, but how can they know that if they don't understand the premises.

What each of us knows varies from person to person, which is why even arguments that are perfectly sound can fail to convince people. A good argument takes into account what people may or may not know. For e.g., a scientist may know X because they've done the appropriate experiments, but you aren't necessarily going to know what he knows because you haven't studied what he's studied. So even a good argument given by a scientist may not convince you. This happens all the time. Most of us when presenting an argument fail to understand the importance of cogency in the arguments we give. Thus the argument fails.

My point is that even though I know the conclusion of my argument follows from the evidence, others who have not studied the appropriate data aren't necessarily going to know that the conclusion follows or that the premises are true. So the argument won't be cogent for them. There will be people who do understand the premises, and still disagree, but that's a different problem. The point I'm making here is about cogency.

So if my argument is not good or is weak it's because it's not cogent for many people. For e.g., they may not understand that the argument is more than anecdotal evidence, or they may not understand enough about hallucinations to rule them out as a criticism. I've tried to make the argument cogent for everyone by giving as much information as I could, but often this is not enough.

See you in the afterlife. :grin:

:eyes: :sparkle: :rofl: She was only resuscitated, not resurrected; ergo, no "NDE".

NB: Gnostic / living-in-a-simulation fairytales are merely variations on the very ancient "dream within a dream" placebo-fetish (aided and abetted by cross-cultural hallucinogenic & entheogenic – or apoxic / anaesthetic – experiences). As the Buddha teaches, it makes no sense – wastes time and effort – to wonder or fixate on where the flame goes when a candle blows/burns-out. Walking the path – living one's life (with courage & dignity as an end in itself) – is the destination, not some ... "afterlife".

it makes no sense – wastes time and effort – to wonder or fixate on where the flame goes when a candle blows/burns-out. Walking the path – living one's life (with courage & dignity as an end in itself) – is the destination, not some ... "afterlife". — 180 Proof

:clap: As Mark Twain also pointed out, such is as pointless, as wondering about your personal state, "beforelife."

:up:

Hi Sam

As you say. the amount of testimony to be found at all times and places over the last three thousand years is astonishing. A minimum condition for trusting the testimony, however, is that we trust the testifier and the problem in this particular area of knowledge is that one has to know a lot about it before one can make a judgement. A practitioner who has the benefit of some degree of realization will know who to trust, but the common man (I include most philosophers under this heading since few study these things) has no way to judge. .

For this reason I would come at the issue from another angle. If you study metaphysics you'll find logical arguments that make the case in a far less ignorable way. and then you can link them up to the testimony to make it more plausible.

This is not the pace, but it is not difficult to show that there is only one metaphysical theory that survives analysis, or to show that this is the theory endorsed by the Buddha, Lao Tzu and the Indian Upanishads. The complication is only that they say there is no consciousness after death, but what they mean is no intentional subject-object consciousness. It can be demonstrated in logic that the only global theory that works is one for which consciousness (of a more profound kind) is fundamental and reality is a unity.

It completely baffles me why philosophy students are not taught this. It's hardly rocket science. Or, it would were it not that not ideology such a potent force in the philosophy department. .

Thanks, Sam. I just want to say that your answers make sense to me, not personally having had any NDE or other spiritual experiences as such. It reminds me of Doris Lessing's Canopus in Argos books.

And comparison with Doris Lessing is a great compliment in my little world.

Thanks for the response.

You're welcome.

It's really about learning, about accumulating knowledge, and not being afraid to think outside the box. If you think this reality is all there is, fine, I'm surely not begrudging you that belief. A lot of brilliant people, smarter than either of us, have concluded that consciousness survives death.

I think the evidence is overwhelming, so for me I know there is an afterlife. It's an epistemological answer. I'm not guessing, surmising, giving an opinion, speculating, or expressing an intuition. Moreover, if after looking at the evidence, you still can't draw the conclusion, then I think you're to wedded to a particular worldview, and not wedded to facts. You're giving to much weight to the materialist view. The materialist view fails on so many fronts it's difficult for me to understand how anyone with an ounce of intellect can seriously believe that what we are observing is the end of the story. We're constantly discovering new things about the universe, so in my mind it doesn't pay to be as dogmatic as you are. What you're espousing sounds more like religious dogma. Could I be wrong in my conclusion, sure, but it's quite unlikely.

There's a vested interest in materialism being right, science being the arbiter of reality, and death being the end. Nothing which questions that will go unchallenged because the stakes are imponderably large.

As the Buddha teaches, it makes no sense – wastes time and effort – to wonder or fixate on where the flame goes when a candle blows/burns-out. — 180 Proof

The 'flame going out' is a reference to Nirvāṇa, the ending of that process, but until it is realised, the Buddha taught that beings will wander endlessly in saṃsāra. Accordingly Buddhism has elaborate doctrines of the afterlife, at least some of which have seeped into popular culture, such as the Tibetan Book of the Dead, and it is certainly mistaken to claim that Buddhism does not accept there being a life beyond this one. (An contemporary example would be A Guided Tour of Hell, by Sam Bercholz, who founded the large Buddhist publishing house Shambhala, and whose NDE following heart surgery forms the basis of that book.)

There's a vested interest in materialism ... — Quixodian

Actually, there is far more of a vested – self-flattering – interest in im-materialism (i.e. spiritualism, idealism) than "materialism", as you say, which is much too impersonal and mechanical for any sort of emotional investment, or personal bias.

for any sort of emotional investment, or personal bias.

I don't know about that. Plenty have philosophers seem to have become quite invested in the idea that materialism is what allows them to look the void in the eye and scream their power into it. How can we be Nietzschean overcomers without a void to overcome? How else can we congratulate ourselves over being good when there is no Good? What is the point of the Marxist struggle if we get a greater reward in the afterlife?

There seems to be lots of validation that comes from materialism, and people certainly seem emotionally invested it, to embrace it as dogma, etc. Plus, there is always the emotional motivation of simply being opposed to alternatives; same as in politics, "I don't know about my own party, but I sure do hate the other ones."

Point being, when dogmatically embraced, the dogmatism seems as corrosive.

You're talking about dogmatism and I was not.

I think the evidence is overwhelming, so for me I know there is an afterlife. It's an epistemological answer. I'm not guessing, surmising, giving an opinion, speculating, or expressing an intuition. — Sam26

You have not provided any publicly accessible evidence or sound arguments for an "afterlife" which hold up under even the most rudimentary scrutiny. What you think you "know", sir, is unwarranted, and therefore, dogmatic at best or delusional at worse. Your threads on this topic conspicuously corroborate my criticisms – and I have never based my rejection of your claims on "materialism" but on the demonstable insufficiency of your claims themselves.

Actually, there is far more of a vested – self-flattering – interest in im-materialism (i.e. spiritualism, idealism) than "materialism", as you say, which is much too impersonal and mechanical for any sort of emotional investment, or personal bias. — 180 Proof

Might be true if the concept of matter was coherent, which it isn't, or science could explain how matter gives rise to consciousness, which it can't.

In any case, the point was your reference to

As the Buddha teaches... — 180 Proof

because you were mis-quoting. The passage you're referring to about 'the candle being extinguished', was in a dialogue between the Buddha and a follower, about what happens to the Buddha's consciousness/mind after enlightenment. That's what cannot be speculated about. It's got nothing to do with Buddhist beliefs about the afterlife, so it's misleading in the context in which it was given.

Might be true if the concept of matter was coherent, which it isn't, or science could explain how matter gives rise to consciousness, which it can't. — Quixodian

:cheer:

Actually, there is far more of a vested – self-flattering – interest in im-materialism (i.e. spiritualism, idealism) than "materialism", as you say, which is much too impersonal and mechanical for any sort of emotional investment, or personal bias.
— 180 Proof

Might be true if the concept of matter was coherent, which it isn't, ... — Quixodian

I don't understand this reply.

... or science could explain how matter gives rise to consciousness, which it can't[

How do you KNOW this?

I think the evidence is overwhelming, so for me I know there is an afterlife. — Sam26

A bridge too far! Have you mused in any way regarding the form, structure, place, physics, biology, chemistry etc of this afterlife?
Do you propose for example that one of the physical rules of this afterlife you suggest, is that those who experience it, are unable to communicate in any effective way, with us?
Do you propose that everything that's alive and dies on this little mote of dust planet, experiences an afterlife?
Was there an afterlife before humans existed on Earth?
Did the dinosaurs experience an afterlife? Are they still alive in this afterlife?
How about the other early hominids, such as the Neanderthals or Homo Habilis etc?
Do you muse about how this afterlife functions as a 'society?'
Can you offer some of your musings regarding 'a typical day/duration in the life of an afterlifer?'
Was there no afterlife during the at least 8 billion years that there was no Earth or could other aliens have made up the afterlife and still do contribute to the afterlife population (which must be enormous by now)
Do you think you die again, at some point in the afterlife?
An eternity of afterlife could become torturous no? Immortals can't even kill themselves, ever, that choice has been removed!!!
I am bemused by your claim that you think the evidence of an afterlife is overwhelming?
I have many, many, many more questions about the nature of the afterlife experience but if your evidence is overwhelming then you must feel quite confident that you can convince the majority of the human race that the afterlife is fact. What demonstrations can you offer?

Obviously there are questions that can't be answered about an afterlife, just as there are many questions about quantum mechanics or consciousness that can't be answered. However, this doesn't negate what we already know. And yes, I've mused over many of these questions, and will continue to muse over many other questions.

Just because the evidence is overwhelming doesn't mean you can convince anyone or everyone of the conclusions that logically follow. If you had understood what I said about cogency this question wouldn't arise. As for my demonstrations, as you say, I've given them in the inductive argument. I guess you don't understand inductive arguments or you would've asked me this question. You can disagree with the argument, but the argument speaks for itself. If the argument is weak, then the conclusion probably doesn't follow, if it is strong (as I suppose it is), then the conclusion does follow.

Obviously there are questions that can't be answered about an afterlife — Sam26

Why do you think that is the case? It seems to me that the only question about the afterlife, you are convinced by 'overwhelming evidence,' that you can answer, is that it exists.
99.9% of all species that have existed on Earth, are extinct, but do they all still exist in an afterlife? Or is it just humans that were born after ....... BCE? CE?

And yes, I've mused over many of these questions, and will continue to muse over many other questions. — Sam26

Can you offer any conclusions from your musings regarding the nature and structure of the afterlife?
It seems to me that becomes your burden, based on your claims.

Just because the evidence is overwhelming doesn't mean you can convince anyone or everyone of the conclusions that logically follow. — Sam26

Well, I personally find ${E=M{C^2}}$ very convincing, as it demonstrably works.
Do you think such as NDE's are as robust as ${E=M{C^2}}$?

If you had understood what I said about cogency this question wouldn't arise. — Sam26

Can you help me understand what I have not so far understood about the term 'cogency' in the context you employ it? Cogency: the quality of being clear, logical, and convincing; lucidity.

As for my demonstrations, as you say, I've given them in the inductive argument. I guess you don't understand inductive arguments or you would've asked me this question. — Sam26

How about this:
An inductive argument is not capable of delivering a binary, true-or-false conclusion. This is because such arguments are often based on circumstantial evidence and a limited number of samples. Because of this limitation, an inductive argument can be disproven by a single negative or weak sample.

You can disagree with the argument, but the argument speaks for itself. If the argument is weak, then the conclusion probably doesn't follow, if it is strong (as I suppose it is), then the conclusion does follow. — Sam26

So if I argue that unicorns and fairies exist because I communicated with both, during my own NDE then they must both exist as my argument speaks for itself (you know that is a logical fallacy, right?)
I think you are overburdening the law of identity:
From Wiki:
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz claimed that the law of identity, which he expresses as "Everything is what it is", is the first primitive truth of reason.

If the argument is weak, then the conclusion probably doesn't follow, if it is strong (as I suppose it is), then the conclusion does follow. — Sam26

Well, at least you are willing to offer readers the choice between these two conclusions, even though you try to burden the choice you make available with (as I suppose it is).

I find some of this discussion odd for a philosophy forum.

Is it not easy to work out that materialism is nonsense? I've never come across a materialist who claims it is comprehensible, Most are happy to concede it requires a miracle to avoid being paradoxical and we all know it explains exactly nothing,

Approximately all philosophers conclude that extreme metaphysical position are logically indefensible, as is explained by Kant, Bradley, Nagarjuna, Russell, Carnap et al, and materialism is one of them. If materialism is true then the world in paradoxical and incomprehensible and we might as well all pack up and go home.

It is also a basic fact that disinterested philosophers, while they may take them into account, cannot rely on other people's reports of NDEs, inner realisations and enlightenment. Some sort of demonstrable argument and proof is required.

The starting place for an investigation should surely be the established and inarguable facts, and the first and foremost of these is that all positive metaphysical positions are logically indefensible and can be reduced to absurdity. This disposes of most theories and ideas and clears a path for further investigation.

It''s very weird that academic philosophers claim philosophy is incomprehensible and the mystics claim the opposite, and the former cannot refute the latter. Human beings are are odd lot. .

Naturalism and materialism are very similar imo. I note the difference, as proposed by such as:
'Naturalism and materialism are two philosophical concepts that differ in their approach to explaining the world. Naturalism states that the world can be explained entirely by physical, natural phenomena or laws, while materialism argues that all that exists is matter, only matter is real and so the world is just physical. The difference between the two is that materialism makes an argument about the ontology of the universe, while naturalism takes a premise (effectively that of materialism) to make an argument on how science/philosophy should function'

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, materialism and naturalism are metaphysical positions. But, for me, that seems to clash with what science is. Science is the study of the natural, material universe, is it not? Physics used to be called natural philosophy, yes? But Physics is not metaphysics. Where Is my thinking wrong here?
I have no academic qualifications in philosophy, so perhaps those who do, can easily clear this up for me? @180 Proof? @Fooloso4?

I typed "is materialism considered an extreme metaphysical position?" into google and got:
Materialism is not considered an extreme metaphysical position. It is now the epistemological position that the methods of physics are such that they will finally map the structure of the universe. Materialism is a metaphysical thesis in the sense that it tells us about the nature of the world.

I asked chat GPT the same question and got:

The classification of materialism as an extreme metaphysical position depends on the context and the perspective of the person evaluating it. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that deals with the fundamental nature of reality, including questions about the nature of existence, substance, and the relationship between mind and matter.

Materialism is the philosophical view that everything that exists can be explained in terms of matter and physical processes. According to materialism, the physical world is the only reality, and mental states or consciousness are by-products of the physical processes in the brain. This view rejects the existence of any supernatural or non-physical entities.

Some people may consider materialism an extreme metaphysical position because it excludes any consideration of non-material or spiritual aspects of reality. From a religious or spiritual perspective, materialism can be seen as reductionist or overly simplistic, as it does not account for phenomena that may fall outside the scope of the physical world.

However, from a scientific and naturalistic standpoint, materialism is often seen as a rational and valid approach. Science relies on empirical evidence and observable phenomena, which align with the materialist perspective. Many scientists and philosophers argue that the materialist worldview has led to significant advancements in our understanding of the natural world and has provided a reliable framework for scientific inquiry.

Ultimately, whether materialism is considered an extreme metaphysical position or not depends on one's philosophical, religious, or scientific perspective. Different philosophical schools and belief systems will have diverse views on this matter. It is essential to consider various perspectives and engage in open discussions to understand the nuances of different metaphysical positions.

I therefore consider your view that materialism/naturalism are extreme metaphysical philosophies, very much contested.

It might be interesting to discuss in some fashion, but as stated it's not coherent.

Consciousness is part of body, like lungs are or feet.

Obviously there are questions that can't be answered about an afterlife
— Sam26
Why do you think that is the case? It seems to me that the only question about the afterlife, you are convinced by 'overwhelming evidence,' that you can answer, is that it exists.
99.9% of all species that have existed on Earth, are extinct, but do they all still exist in an afterlife? Or is it just humans that were born after ....... BCE? CE? — universeness

Why do I think that there are many questions that we can't answer? It seems that that is the case with many subjects. Our knowledge is just incomplete, which is why knowledge keeps evolving. For example. in the past people had little knowledge about plant life, but that didn't mean that the flower didn't exist. It just meant what little knowledge they had was incomplete.

If you read my thread, then you would know that the point of my argument was to give testimonial evidence that there is an afterlife. My inductive argument was not meant to go further than that. However, in parts of the thread I do point out that there are other conclusions that one can infer.

I don't know if all species go to an afterlife, probably not. It seems that certain animals do though. This question goes beyond the scope of my conclusion, not that the question isn't interesting. The answer to this question may have a lot to do with how you view this reality. It's my belief that much of this reality isn't real, i.e., it's part of a program, created for us to have human experiences. Of course to defend this would take some explaining, but the seeds of this are in parts of this thread.

Can you offer any conclusions from your musings regarding the nature and structure of the afterlife? It seems to me that becomes your burden, based on your claims. — universeness

Why would you think that there is some burden for me to explain the nature and structure of the afterlife? My argument isn't about the nature and structure of the universe, it's about the existence of an afterlife. That said, I can give some information about the afterlife, and I have done this in different parts of this thread. My belief is that consciousness is at the bottom of reality. It's a brute fact of reality. Also, I believe that time is part of the nature of consciousness. As far as I can determine it seems contradictory for there to be consciousness without time (without change). I think that space is, at least partly, an aspect of what we experience in an afterlife, i.e., as we move from place to place. Whatever consciousness is, in terms of structure, that will tell us much about the structure of the afterlife. However, we are far from understanding the nature and structure of consciousness. Again though, this does nothing to my argument. Saying something exists doesn't mean that we understand everything about that thing. It just means that we don't have access to all the facts. You see this in science all the time.

Well, I personally find E=MC2 very convincing, as it demonstrably works.
Do you think such as NDE's are as robust as E=MC2? — universeness

They're two different investigations. My investigation is a metaphysical one, not a physical investigation. What's considered robust in one context may not work in another context. However, I do think the logic of my argument is very strong. So, it's not about robustness, but about the strength of the argument.

Can you help me understand what I have not so far understood about the term 'cogency' in the context you employ it? Cogency: the quality of being clear, logical, and convincing; lucidity. — universeness

I guess I don't see how I haven't been clear on this point. Whether or not an argument is convincing (cogent) to another person is dependent on what that person knows. And since knowledge varies from person to person, being convinced is partly depended on what we know. So if someone isn't familiar with the concepts of mass and energy, they're not going to understand Einstein's conclusion. So it won't be cogent for them, i.e., it won't necessarily convince them of anything.

An inductive argument is not capable of delivering a binary, true-or-false conclusion. This is because such arguments are often based on circumstantial evidence and a limited number of samples. Because of this limitation, an inductive argument can be disproven by a single negative or weak sample. — universeness

That's right, inductive arguments are supposed to provide some evidence that supports the conclusion, which is why I've said many times in this thread that the argument is either strong or weak. It's suppose to give evidence that the conclusion is probably true, not necessarily true, as in a deductive argument.

So if I argue that unicorns and fairies exist because I communicated with both, during my own NDE then they must both exist as my argument speaks for itself (you know that is a logical fallacy, right?)
I think you are overburdening the law of identity: — universeness

Just because someone claims to see this or that, that doesn't mean the thing exists, obviously. There's much more to my argument than your simplification. Moreover, to reduce my argument to your version of the argument is a strawman.

I was tempted to not respond to your questions because many of the questions I've already answered several times in this thread. But I guess, one more time won't hurt.

I find some of this discussion odd for a philosophy forum. — FrancisRay

Why? I'm giving an argument based on inductive reasoning. It's part of the study of metaphysics. You may not agree with my conclusion, but it's still a philosophical inquiry.

Why do I think that there are many questions that we can't answer? — Sam26

Well perhaps I did not make my point clearly with the wording I chose. I was trying to ask you why you are only sure that there is 'overwhelming evidence' that an afterlife exists, and that's all you are sure of.

I don't know if all species go to an afterlife, probably not. It seems that certain animals do though. — Sam26

So have you ruminated as to how you think the choice would be made for 'qualifies for the afterlife?' and who or what system would do, or has been doing the choosing?

Why would you think that there is some burden for me to explain the nature and structure of the afterlife? — Sam26

Your claim that the afterlife exists, was a very strong one.

I think the evidence is overwhelming — Sam26

If I claimed to you that I have overwhelming evidence that time travel into the future is available right now! Would you not expect me to provide some details of how it works and functions or would you just accept that my argument that I have personally experienced it but I cannot reveal the details or tell you what is going to happen due to a universal time prime directive (ie, those involved would kill me) speaks for itself. Would you suggest that such a claim, based on such evidence was absurd?

I think that space is, at least partly, an aspect of what we experience in an afterlife, i.e., as we move from place to place. — Sam26

I am writing a book called Stage II (stage 2) about an afterlife, but it only happens for approximately 1 in every 100 million humans. Just an interesting story (I hope,) nothing more. Where, how, why and the purpose of the stage II ascendents was fun to imagineer. Perhaps I didn't imagineer anything. Perhaps I was receiving Stage II communications, directly to my brain! :yikes:

However, I do think the logic of my argument is very strong. So, it's not about robustness, but about the strength of the argument. — Sam26

Yep, perhaps you could write all your musing on the topic down in story form, and you might start a new religious/theosophist movement. I doubt my Stage II book (whenever I finish the f**ker) will start a new movement to rival the biggest growing new religion, 'The Jedi,' but I remain a dreamer. Perhaps your afterlife book, would be better and do better than mine.

I was tempted to not respond to your questions because many of the questions I've already answered several times in this thread. But I guess, one more time won't hurt. — Sam26

I appreciate the time and effort you spent Sam26!

I think it more helpful to determine what someone making the argument for or against materialism or naturalism or metaphysics means. Rather than the meaning of terms, what assumptions about the world, our inquiries, and our understanding are at issue.

With regard to Sam's claims, it seems to me that at the root is a set of beliefs about consciousness:

My belief is that consciousness is at the bottom of reality. It's a brute fact of reality. — Sam26

Of course there are many who hold to this belief without the added belief that individual consciousness is at the bottom of reality or that individual consciousness endures.