Or is it inferred from recognizing or interpreting the experience as a typical near death experience because one has seen alleged near death experiences depicted or described? — jkop
My view of epistemology is that there are several ways of acquiring knowledge that aren’t dependent on a scientific approach (experimentation, data collection, and peer-reviewed papers). — Sam26
he three epistemological elements of my argument include logic, sensory experience, and testimonial evidence. These three ways of acquiring knowledge are sufficient in themselves to make a reasonable conclusion that consciousness survives death. — Sam26
I’m not claiming that our knowledge in this case is known with absolute certainty, just as most of our knowledge isn’t known with absolute certainty. I’m claiming that the evidence is known with a high degree of certainty. — Sam26
This objective component also dispels the notion that the experience is a hallucination, delusion, dream, lack of oxygen, etc. — Sam26
And to think that someone can point to some brain activity to show that it’s the brain that creates consciousness is similar to pointing to a component in a radio to show that what you’re listening to is confined to the radio. It doesn't follow. — Sam26
Another important point is that many of the people who have NDEs report that their experience is not diminished, which is what you might expect with a brain that isn’t getting enough oxygen or blood, in fact, it is heightened. By heightened I mean their sensory experiences are much sharper, they see colors that they haven’t seen before, and their vision is reported to be expanded (360-degree vision) in many cases. — Sam26
it is impossible for life to continue after death? — Philosophim
By definition. Death is the end of living. There should be no debate. — ENOAH
I was a little surprised to find you had not addressed my response to you. I linked you a nice article and addressed your points. To ignore someone who does this and repeat what you spoke about earlier is avoidance, and an indicator that you don't have the answers to the previous points. — Philosophim
he three epistemological elements of my argument include logic, sensory experience, and testimonial evidence. These three ways of acquiring knowledge are sufficient in themselves to make a reasonable conclusion that consciousness survives death.
— Sam26
No, they are not.
1. Logic indicates you are making an induction, not a reasonable conclusion. Logic also indicates per the article that I linked, that the existence of NDE's does not mean that there was evidence of actual death at the time the person had the vision/dream. — Philosophim
2. Sensory experience has been disproven by the fact people can sink in and out of consciousness in anesthesia, and it has not been conclusively pin pointed when exactly a person had a NDE. It is not that NDE's do not happen, its that there's no indicator they are actual experiences after brain death. To conclude there is consciousness after death, one must have an example of consciousness after actual death and a return to life. — Philosophim
3. You only conclude a bias of testimonial evidence. You do not include the majority of cases in which people do not have NDE's when in similar near death experiences. You do not include the nightmares, or the visions of things that do not exist. You cherry pick nice and positive experiences then say, "They're all like that." They are all not. When taken as a whole, NDE's are very much like dreams and minimal conscious processing. — Philosophim
I read your argument, but it does not support your conclusion that consciousness survives death. You call your argument "inductive"; I think it would be better labeled "abductive" - because you are proposing a explanatory hypothesis that fits the facts associated with NDEs. Analyzed this way, we could consider whether or not your hypothesis is the best explanation for the available facts. You sidestep this, by simply claiming your conclusion is a reasonable inductive inference. I don't think it is reasonable, but this is shown most easily by comparing it to alternative hypotheses that better explain the available facts.First, I've given the criteria of a good inductive argument, and based on those criteria the inductive conclusion is overwhelmingly reasonable. (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/912262) — Sam26
So, your conclusion that I'm avoiding you and don't have answers to your posts is incorrect. There's nothing that you've posted that's difficult to answer, and much of what you've posted shows a lack of understanding of the subject of NDEs, even the paper you posted can be addressed, although it would take more time. — Sam26
First, I've given the criteria of a good inductive argument, and based on those criteria the inductive conclusion is overwhelmingly reasonable. — Sam26
I don't know about you, but if someone tells me that they see X during their experience and it's corroborated by doctors, nurses, staff, and family members, then that's a veridical experience. You can keep denying what millions of people are saying because you're entrenched in a materialistic worldview, but it won't change the facts. — Sam26
Your responses demonstrate that you haven't studied these experiences, and your responses clearly show that. — Sam26
Again, I'm not aware of NDEs that don't generally confirm an OBE, so I don't know what you're referring to. — Sam26
What seems strange to me is that you seem to ignore so many other studies and peer-reviewed material, which at least acknowledges that many of these questions are open to many scientists (open for them, not for me). — Sam26
Sorry I can't respond to everything or everybody, I just don't have the energy nor the inclination — Sam26
Are you understanding my points? I never denied people don't have these experiences. I denied that they logically lead to a conclusion that there was life after death, both rationally, and do not hold inductively when compared to other stronger inductive arguments that show our consciousness does not live on after death. — Philosophim
However, most do happen in life-threatening situations. That said, most of the time when I refer to death I’m referring to clinical death, viz, when a doctor would pronounce someone dead. — Sam26
It’s the experience itself, the claim that people have had an OBE, and their experiences while having an OBE. This is the central point of my argument. It’s what people see during their NDE that supports their belief that they had an OBE — Sam26
What constitutes an NDE are certain common characteristics laid out in the Greyson scale in the following link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271857657_The_Near-Death_Experience_Scale (Citation: Greyson, B. (2007). The near-death experience as a focus of clinical attention. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 195(10), 883-890.) — Sam26
The question is, “Do you understand my points?” If people are having these experiences, i.e., they are veridical, then my conclusion follows based on the numbers, variety, and truth of testimonials (corroborative evidence and consistency of reports). — Sam26
Unless you’re simply saying that the experiences are real but not veridical. — Sam26
The paper you cited doesn’t take into account much of the research that has been done and oversimplifies the NDE research. As I said, I’ve been studying these accounts for many years and have read many of the counterarguments, most try to explain the memory reports in very dubious ways, which I and many others have found wanting. — Sam26
To argue that my argument doesn’t “…logically lead to [my] conclusion…” you have to demonstrate that the premises aren’t true, and you’ve failed miserably at that. — Sam26
Another important point is the nature of consciousness itself, i.e., can consciousness be explained by simply appealing to brain functions? The answer for me at least, and for many other scientists and philosophers, is no — Sam26
In Nagel’s 1974 paper, What Is It Like to Be a Bat Nagel also explores subjective experiences and the nature of consciousness. He concludes that consciousness has an irreducible aspect, and I agree based on my studies which go beyond what I’ve given in this thread. He further concludes that the physicalist approach to consciousness is not sufficient to address our subjective experiences and that we need a fundamentally new approach to concepts and methods. — Sam26
Although this post doesn’t address every question or challenge it gives more information to support my conclusions and raises other considerations. — Sam26
It sounds like you don't have a lot of time left. I've been harsh on the subject material, but not on you.
You may not see it as a gift, but really, it is. You will die. I will die. And that will be it. So don't waste your time. Fill it with family, friends, loved ones. Explore, fulfill your last curiosities, and do the things you've always wanted to do. Because after its over, its done. That's why we come here. To really think about things and sift the lies, illusions, and artificial hopes from reality. A life lived real is a really lived life. Good luck and enjoy your time. — Philosophim
I’m not afraid of death, and to give me advice on living and dying is quite condescending as if I don’t understand what’s important. I guess I need advice since I don’t think about such things (ha-ha). You probably mean well, so I don’t take offense. — Sam26
I find it curious that some people think that people who believe there is an afterlife are somehow afraid that their existence is coming to an end, so we grasp at straws (beliefs) to comfort ourselves. — Sam26
The psychological reasons/causes for what we all believe are very strong, often overriding what’s logical. — Sam26
The only thing that matters to me is the evidence or good reasons that support my argument, not some fear of ceasing to exist, fear of hell, or some other fear. — Sam26
Finally, your epistemology relies too heavily on the power of science to explain, as if epistemological considerations of science are paramount to knowing something is the case. However, much of what we know is through everyday testimonial evidence, which is why I think this argument is so powerful. — Sam26
You strike me as a thinker in earlier stages of development. This is not an insult to your intelligence. Good thinking for most people takes training. It takes years of work. You can never be satisfied, and I seek to improve in little ways every day. — Philosophim
One problem I see is that you are still stuck on how to correctly use inductive thinking. If you re-read, that's really my focus. Inductive thinking is by definition, not necessarily true. So even the best of inductive arguments is not considered a sound argument, but a supposition, or conjecture at best. Considering there are several competing conjectures that your inductive argument must address and overcome, its not in a good position. — Philosophim
Second, you're assuming the argument that I'm trying to make instead of really understanding it. I want to re-emphasize again, that I am not questioning whether people experience NDE's or OBEs. If you re-read, you seem to want to re-argue their realness when I've already long accepted that they're real. My point is that a personal experience does not mean strong or conclusive evidence about objective reality. — Philosophim
Now, does that mean that when we dream our consciousness actually travels to another realm where we can fly? No. Its just a common brain activity while we sleep. Personal experience is not evidence of objective reality. Personal experience is out interpretation of objective reality. And just because we interpret reality a certain way, it does not mean it is a certain way. Ever seen an optical illusion? That's our interpretation ability going overdrive, the illusion is not actually happening in reality apart from ourselves. — Philosophim
My emphasis is not on 'science', but deduction and objective testing. Science is a good go to, because articles are peer reviewed. Meaning they must hold to high standards from the rest of the community, and are always open to having their research examined and questioned. We want to believe in the power of induction and personal experience, and while it can be useful in many instances, it also has many known flaws. — Philosophim
So even the best of inductive arguments is not considered a sound argument, but a supposition, or conjecture at best. — Philosophim
So your argument has several problems it needs to solve. How do you reconcile the fact that we can duplicate NDEs in neurology and oxygen deprivation scenarios? How do you reconcile the fact that no OBE has ever been shown to see something that was placed outside of their bodies field of view during the time in which the NDE should be occurring? There are real problems that if not solved, cut the inductive argument that consciousness survives our death into pieces. — Philosophim
I’m quite familiar with symbolic logic and I know some modal logic which means that I know something about correct reasoning, including how to analyze arguments. — Sam26
Most of our reasoning, including science, is inductive. — Sam26
A word about sound arguments (soundness is a property of deductive arguments, it includes validity and the truth of the premises), in logic it’s used as a criterion to describe good deductive arguments, although the truth of the premises of an inductive argument is parallel to soundness in deductive arguments. — Sam26
For someone to say, “You strike me as a thinker in earlier stages of development,” is laughable given these comments on logic. — Sam26
Just because we can duplicate NDEs, it doesn’t follow that NDEs are not objectively real. It just means we know what things can trigger similar aspects of the NDE. It also just means that the brain plays a role in consciousness as we know it. It doesn’t follow that duplicating NDEs demonstrates that consciousness is solely a construct of the brain. — Sam26
For someone who claims to have studied NDEs and who continues to say things like, “How do you reconcile the fact that no OBE has ever been shown to see something that was placed outside of their bodies field of view during the time in which the NDE should be occurring?” - is completely mystifying to me. There have been many corroborative NDE accounts of people seeing and hearing things that are nowhere near their bodies. Just a cursory study of NDEs should dispel this belief. — Sam26
People have heard conversations in other parts of the hospital, have heard and seen things happening many miles from where their body is located, and have seen people in their NDE that they didn’t know were dead, this happens all the time. — Sam26
One example of corroboration is given in Pam's NDE out of Atlanta, GA — Sam26
To know if the premises are true, we need corroboration of the testimonial evidence, a high degree of consistency, and firsthand testimony. In all or most of these cases, it seems clear that we have all three. — Sam26
For example, you continue to say that it's just subjective and when I point out that there has been objective corroboration from doctors, nurses, friends, and family members you just reject it. — Sam26
I don't need peer-reviewed studies to understand that there is objective corroboration. — Sam26
:100: :up:If you do not provide any evidence that these subjective interpretations of reality have been confirmed as objective realities in controlled settings, then your argument has failed as an assertion. It is ahypothesis[idle speculation], no more, and cannot stand against other the contrary hypothesis that has been confirmed as of this day: "Consciousness does not survive death". — Philosophim
The idea that we need to confirm our subjective experiences in controlled settings or they're not veridical is ridiculous on its face. — Sam26
If so, then what makes "consciousness" mine? If it's not mine, then why should "consciousness" matter to me? If, however, "consciousness" is mine, then what does "trans-individual" mean and why should it matter to me?Consciousness, in its essence, is imminently trans-individual. — Pantagruel
If so, then what makes "consciousness" mine? If it's not mine, then why should "consciousness" matter to me? If, however, "consciousness" is mine, then what does "trans-individual" mean and why should it matter to me? — 180 Proof
The idea that we need to confirm our subjective experiences in controlled settings or they're not veridical is ridiculous on its face. — Sam26
Or, that we need something more than hundreds of thousands of corroborated (objective) reports is so irrational that only someone with a worldview that is set in cement would accept it. — Sam26
:up: :up:We have billions of people that look into the sky and see that the Sun travels around the Earth. The Sun rises in the East, and sets in the West. No one is saying we don't have that unified and confirmed subjective experience. But is our interpretation of that subjective experience true? No. It turns out that the Earth actually orbits the sun. But from our limited perspectives, and can feel like its the other way around. — Philosophim
It was evidently highly coordinated, a social entity, an organism, a macroscopic brain. — Pantagruel
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.