If so, then what makes "consciousness" mine? — 180 Proof

Nothing, I suggest. What makes you 180 Proof is not consciousness, but your body, history, emotions, etc. Consciousness bears subjectivity, but not character/individuation. But this is paradoxical, I concede.

I feel like a asshole. — bert1

No doubt.

I concede. — bert1

My questions were for @Pantagruel to clarify his specific statement which he cannot because it's gibberish. And your response, bert, isn't "paradoxical", just more semantic jugglery.

No doubt. — 180 Proof

I'm learning to live with it

So are we. :mask:

Haha!

Not everything that can be proven can be proven at this moment, just like not everything that can be rebutted can be rebutted at this moment. Life is largely anecdotal. For someone with a formidable intellect, you are remarkably unimaginative.

:eyes:

Testimonial Evidence and Other Comments

Most of what people tell us about their sensory experiences is trustworthy. If this wasn’t the case we would be reduced to silence. This doesn’t mean that we just accept everything people say, it just means that most of what people relay to us is reliable; and since it’s generally reliable along with our sensory experiences it’s a genuine epistemological category along with other ways of acquiring knowledge. This way of knowing is much more pervasive than even science. It doesn’t have the glamour of science or the creative power of science, at least seemingly so, but its power in our lives is undeniable.

One can always point to counter-examples where large groups of people believed X and their belief or beliefs turned out to be false. However, this does nothing to the argument that testimonial evidence or our sensory experiences are generally reliable, which is the bedrock of NDE testimonials. If such examples diminished the effectiveness of the general reliability of such justifications, then it would also diminish sciences’ ability to be an effective way of justifying their beliefs or theories because science depends on testimony, sensory experience (observation), mathematics, and logic to validate many of their experiments. If you removed sensory experiences from science, it would collapse.

My approach is simple, in that I’m applying Occam’s Razor to the evidence, i.e., the simplest explanation is probably the best explanation. This is how we approach most testimonial evidence in our lives. This is not to say that science isn’t helpful because it is, but that science is by its very nature materialistic, although that is slowly changing. Moreover, the tools of most scientists are not conducive to the study of consciousness because consciousness in my estimation is not materialistic, and this nonmaterialistic aspect can be understood with a simple understanding of our subjective experiences.

The truth of the matter is that for many materialists no amount of evidence would convince them because they’re so entrenched in their beliefs. This is also true of religious ideology; no amount of counterevidence would dissuade them because they’re so dogmatically entrenched in their beliefs. Nothing seems to falsify such beliefs, which is mostly the result of dogmatism. Dogmatism in many cases is the enemy of truth.

NDEs have the same structure that any veridical experience would have, i.e., they all show slightly different variations that fit the general structure of any veridical experience. This in itself isn’t strong evidence that the experiences are veridical, but it adds to the overall picture that the experiences are veridical. In other words, it’s exactly what you would expect from veridical experiences. Whereas in a hallucination, for example, you wouldn’t find the consistency of experience, nor the corroborative aspects (objective components) that you find in NDEs/OBEs.

My epistemological point of view is that we rely too much on science as some be-all and end-all of knowledge and this just isn’t the case. Most might agree with this epistemological point of view and yet their responses betray their reliance on science as their go-to response. Science is just one more way of using logic, sensory experience, mathematics, and experimentation to answer questions about physical reality. This isn’t to say that science is not important or that we shouldn’t use scientific methods, it just means that science at this stage cannot explain, despite what some people are claiming in this thread, much of the testimonial evidence about OBEs. And if you read a broad range of the literature across the scientific spectrum there are many unanswered questions about the nature of consciousness. It’s not a solved question as some in here might think.

The only evidence and its strong evidence, for our subjective experiences is our collective subjective experiences, each of us has similar experiences albeit with slight variations. The slight variations are an important component of our individual conscious experiences, and they set us apart as individuals.

Most people would consider sufficiently reliable the testimony of 10 or 20 people on most everyday events and would consider the need for science to verify such evidence as ridiculous. Of course, this depends on what people are claiming in their testimony. If 10 or 20 people are claiming they saw Bigfoot I’d be a bit skeptical, you’re going to need a lot more evidence than that, and you’re going to need much more corroboration along with bodies, bones, or other material evidence. The point is that different claims need more or less evidence depending on how much goes against what we normally experience. In the case of OBEs, we have millions of accounts, in a variety of settings, with thousands being corroborated, and the memories are as consistent or stronger than memories of other veridical experiences. These facts suggest that ordinary everyday citizens can, based on a cursory study of the testimony, conclude that OBEs do happen. I say that it’s enough evidence for people to claim that they know OBEs happen. I would further say that if you’ve had the experience, it’s perfectly reasonable to conclude that the experience was veridical, i.e., that you know it’s veridical. Case in point Dr. Eban Alexander’s (neuroscientist) NDE given here:

Proof of Heaven: The Science Behind the Near-Death Experience & Consciousness w/ Dr. Eben Alexander ((https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Msu6_HVRzuI)

To dismiss Dr. Alexander’s testimony, which in itself is very convincing, is to ignore very powerful experiences, that at the very least should be considered and studied with an open mind.

Back a few posts I mentioned David Chalmers not as someone who supports my ideas, but as someone who isn’t as dogmatic about some of these issues as some of you seem to be. He’s surprisingly open-minded even though his conclusions are contrary to many of my conclusions. I enjoyed this recent talk about consciousness at the following link:

What Creates Consciousness? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06-iq-0yJNM&t=2001s

It seems quite clear that people who accept the testimonial evidence that what people see while having an OBE based on what they (doctors, nurses, friends, etc.) know happened is eminently reasonable. Cases, such as the one where a lady after having a heart attack describes what she saw while claiming to be outside her body, viz., a shoe on a ledge outside the hospital. A hospital staff member later verified that the shoe was where the lady said it was and even described the placement of the shoelace. The shoe was located in a spot that wasn’t easy to see by looking out a window. Now it would be easy to dismiss such accounts as anecdotal, but many of these accounts are easy to verify or corroborate. And if these accounts were rare, I would dismiss them too, but they are not rare. Of course, you can always point to a possible explanation that might account for such testimony, but that’s no reason to dismiss the account. Some believe that if you can explain how this could have happened via some other vehicle this somehow diminishes the hundreds of thousands of corroborated accounts. Moreover, because some explanation might explain how a person could see the shoe under such circumstances this doesn’t mean that that is the explanation. Yet people are so eager to dismiss such explanations that they’ll grab onto anything that looks like a possible explanation. The number and variety of such reports are much more compelling than some supposed theory that dismisses the testimony wholesale. The fact that something is possible (a possible reason or cause) is not a reason to believe it’s true. Many of the explanations that supposedly account for these OBEs have very little support when compared to what happened given the medical states of these people.

There is no doubt that neuroscience has made a lot of progress over the recent decades, but none of this progress definitively rebuts OBEs or that consciousness survives death. At best science can establish a correlation between the brain and consciousness but not causation. The hope is that we will eventually be able to establish a physical causal account of consciousness. This is the view of many neuroscientists. But to think that we already can give a definitive account of consciousness as materialistic is just false, it’s just one theory that some scientists and philosophers believe.

Another case is the case of Al Sullivan (Al Sullivan - Near death out of body experience. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-91QXXsyEc&list=PL5yFMykZj0Mz4nDtOMT-0LK9fM4R_7NNK) in which he describes what’s happening in the operating room and the unusual movements of the surgeon. The most reasonable explanation is that he was seeing what was happening from a vantage point outside his body. To dismiss the many thousands (actually millions) of these accounts by saying they’re anecdotal or they’re hallucinations, or it’s a lack of oxygen, or any speculative account besides what’s reported by those who were there is to ignore important data.

One final point, although I put a lot of stock into much of the testimony, there is growing evidence that about 10% (estimate, maybe more) of the testimony on YouTube is created for clicks and is not reliable. After studying NDEs and OBEs for many years I can usually spot those that are not reliable, but this is only the case because of the number of cases I studied before YouTube and other platforms were as ubiquitous as they are now.

An interesting discussion between Bernard Carr & Bernardo Kastrup about consciousness and its relation to time. I find this an interesting topic in relation to my views of consciousness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR0etE_OfMY&t=3355s

Hey Sam - great you’ve discovered this site - Essentia Foundation is a really important voice in this debate. I will take this one in. Oh, and your long post above this one, I’ll take that in as well.

I will make a philosophical point, in respect of the link you provided to the video ‘what creates consciousness?’ That point is that to understand what creates or gives rise to something, is to explain it in terms of something else. The issue with consciousness, is that you must first be a conscious agent to create or provide any kind of explanation. So in that sense, it’s extremely hard to avoid a non-question-begging account of consciousness (where ‘begging the question’ already assumes what the argument is setting out to prove.) In other words, any kind of reduction or explanation can only be offered by a conscious agent. We can’t, as it were, examine it from the outside, as an object to be explained, because we’re always already ‘inside’ it. That’s the precise sense in which consciousness is ‘irreducible’ - that is, it can’t be explained by something else. (Of course, cognitive science provides explanations of the functions of consciousness in terms of neuroscience, and so on, but that is what Chalmers describes as an ‘easy problem’. To describe what consciousness is with reference to anything other than consciousness, is the ‘hard problem’.)

The issue with consciousness, is that you must first be a conscious agent to create or provide any kind of explanation. — Wayfarer

(a) How do you know (i.e. corroborate) that you or any other agent is "conscious" if "consciousness" is completely, inaccessibly subjective? :chin:

(b) And if neither you nor any agent can know (i.e. corroborate) that you, herself or any other agent is "conscious," then on what grounds do you conclude, without vicious circularity, that "any kind of explanation" requires "that you must be a conscious agent"?

(c1) So, in principle, it is impossible for a future, non-conscious AGI-system "agent to create or provide any kind of explanation"?

(c2) And if it does "explain" anything, then, by your reasoning, Wayfarer, that would be evidence the AGI-system is a "conscious agent" (affirming the consequent be damned)?

Most of what people tell us about their sensory experiences is trustworthy... — Sam26

The first paragraph in your post, sir, is riddled with special pleading, appeal to incredulity & appeal to popularity, and also jejune folk psychology. C'mon, how about some philosophizing sans the fallacies & pseudo-science. :roll:

Life is largely anecdotal [sophistry]. — Pantagruel

Yeah, like your posts ... care to try again?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/918584

Life is largely anecdotal [sophistry].
— Pantagruel
Yeah, like your posts ... care to try again? — 180 Proof

Sure.

"Practical Science...is philosophy, which deals with positive truth, indeed, yet contents itself with observations such as come within the range of every man's normal experience, and for the most part, in every waking hour of his life....These observations escape the untrained eye precisely because they permeate our whole lives...."
CS Peirce, "Philosophy and the Sciences"

Indeed, I find Peirce's views to be entirely consonant with my own with respect to the fundamentally limited and approximate character of scientific knowledge, compared with the plenary nature of both reality and our phenomenological experience of it. Peirce is also careful to distinguish between the experimental endeavour, versus just "reading about" something, which I also endorse.

In short, scientific reasoning, if it is legitimate, inherently acknowledges that its results are always open for further correction. And it also acknowledges that there are dimensions and aspects of reality of which it is wholly uninformed. If it doesn't, it is just dogmatism, mere dogmatism.

Peirce is also careful to distinguish between the experimental endeavour, versus just "reading about" something, which I also endorse. — Pantagruel

Mary's room.

Mary's room. — Lionino

Is based on a faulty premise that one can acquire "all the physical facts" that there are about something. Which is implied by my further comments on the inherently compartmentalized and abstract-approximate nature of scientific knowledge in general.

In short, experience overflows our knowledge of it, which is self-evident to me. I know there are some people who think they "know it all" though. They don't.

You thinking that my post was supposed to be a counter-argument is a bit funny.

Inasmuch as you didn't see fit to amplify it I took it that way and responded appropriately. What I thought was funny was that you didn't bother to offer any comment.

I will make a philosophical point, in respect of the link you provided to the video ‘what creates consciousness?’ That point is that to understand what creates or gives rise to something, is to explain it in terms of something else. The issue with consciousness, is that you must first be a conscious agent to create or provide any kind of explanation. So in that sense, it’s extremely hard to avoid a non-question-begging account of consciousness (where ‘begging the question’ already assumes what the argument is setting out to prove.) In other words, any kind of reduction or explanation can only be offered by a conscious agent. We can’t, as it were, examine it from the outside, as an object to be explained, because we’re always already ‘inside’ it. — Wayfarer

Whether or not one's explanation of consciousness is question-begging depends on the argument. I would agree that we can't get outside of our particular view, but we are outside the consciousness of others, so in this sense, we can have an objective point of view. That said, we don't have a clue as to what causes consciousness, and I for one have never attempted to answer this question. I know that you are responding to the video, so I'm saying this as a point of clarification.

A materialist's view of consciousness is what is studied from the physicalist standpoint, viz, they're observing an objective view (looking at the brains of other humans or animals, etc) of the brain's activity, so there can be an objective point of view, and this isn't question-begging. I disagree with their conclusions, but it's not question-begging. So, we can be outside the consciousness of others, we aren't confined to our particular view. Also, others can and do look at the objective evidence and make inferences based on that evidence, which, again, is not question-begging.

The first paragraph in your post, sir, is riddled with special pleading, appeal to incredulity & appeal to popularity, and also jejune folk psychology. C'mon, how about some philosophizing sans the fallacies & pseudo-science. :roll: — 180 Proof

This is just nonsense. One wonders if you have ever studied logic. You keep appealing to logic, but you don't seem to understand the basics of logic. So, you can roll your eyes all you want it does nothing to support your contention. If anything, it does the opposite.

Thank you. :yawn:

just dogmatism, mere dogmatism. — Pantagruel

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/918584

Straight-forward, relevant questions are beyond you. Gotcha, Pants. Just checking.

How do you know (i.e. corroborate) that you or any other agent is "conscious" if "consciousness" is completely, inaccessibly subjective?
— 180 Proof

cogito, ergo sum — Wayfarer

:sweat: :lol: :rofl:

Neither thinking nor existing (individually or jointly) equals "consciousness"; besides, Descartes' slogan (epitaph) is a non sequitur, sir.

(a) How do you know (i.e. corroborate) that you or any other agent is "conscious" if "consciousness" is completely, inaccessibly subjective? — 180 Proof

cogito, ergo sum

Straight-forward, relevant questions are beyond you. Gotcha — 180 Proof

I'm sorry, what exactly was the question again? All I saw was more of your trademark wit, but no actual philosophical commentary of any kind. I substantiated my position anyway.

:lol: Well, apparently you're too lazy to think so it's no surprise you're also too lazy to click on the link I've provided in my previous two posts to an earlier post with the questions you obviously cannot answer.

.

Well, apparently you're too lazy to think — 180 Proof

You mean like when you asked me to explain Mario Bunge's metaphysical concept of energy and I provided a link to his text and you told me "never mind" because you were too lazy to read his essay? Ok. Sure.

I'm not really sure why you even bother to engage people who are legitimately trying to offer good commentary only to mock and belittle them. It's not productive. You are definitely the Donald Trump of philosophy. You strike me as the kind of person who would tattoo "Prove me wrong" on his forehead. Maybe that could be your avatar.

(a) How do you know (i.e. corroborate) that you or any other agent is "conscious" if "consciousness" is completely, inaccessibly subjective?
— 180 Proof

cogito, ergo sum — Wayfarer

:smile:

↪Sam26 Thank you. :yawn: — 180 Proof

Your welcome. You have a tendency to make statements without good arguments, and you accuse me of fallacious thinking without understanding the fallacies, and without understanding the epistemological points. Anyone can accuse someone of fallacious thinking without making a good argument to support it. Your tendency is to make pronouncements as though they're true by fiat.

The first paragraph in your post, sir, is riddled with special pleading, appeal to incredulity & appeal to popularity, and also jejune folk psychology. C'mon, how about some philosophizing sans the fallacies & pseudo-science — 180 Proof

To quote my first paragraph again...

Most of what people tell us about their sensory experiences is trustworthy. If this wasn’t the case we would be reduced to silence. This doesn’t mean that we just accept everything people say, it just means that most of what people relay to us is reliable; and since it’s generally reliable along with our sensory experiences it’s a genuine epistemological category along with other ways of acquiring knowledge. This way of knowing is much more pervasive than even science. It doesn’t have the glamour of science or the creative power of science, at least seemingly so, but its power in our lives is undeniable. — Sam26

To think that these remarks are fallacious is mystifying to me. Most philosophers would probably agree that the first sentence is true, i.e., if it wasn't true much of what we believe through sensory experience would fall apart including many if not all scientific experimentation. Moreover, much of what we know is validated through sensory experience. For example, "How do you know the orange juice is sweet?" - because I tasted it. There are endless examples of sensory experience being a valid way of knowing. So, there is no fallacy here. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of this conclusion.

My second sentence, viz., "This doesn’t mean that we just accept everything people say, it just means that most of what people relay to us is reliable; and since it’s generally reliable along with our sensory experiences it’s a genuine epistemological category along with other ways of acquiring knowledge." Is simply saying that testimonial evidence is a legitimate epistemological category. How this is fallacious is beyond me. It would be like saying in a court of law that all testimonial evidence (strong testimonial evidence) is fallacious. Who would make such a silly statement, and who would claim it's fallacious? Apparently @180 Proof thinks so.

My point in the previous paragraph is simply to point out that there are several ways of using the word know that are epistemological. The following is a list, not exhaustive, but they are the most common uses of know.

1) Inference, argument, proof
2) Sensory experience
3) Testimony
4) Linguistic Training (correct public usage of words)
5) Pure reason or pure logic (X or not X - it's true due to it's logical structure)

All of these are valid ways of knowing, some are stronger than others, but nonetheless they are valid and certainly not fallacious. Where does science fall into the epistemological list? Science uses most of these if not all when putting forth a theory based on experimentation. They often make observations. For example, the 1919 solar eclipse, conducted by Eddington, validated Einstein's general theory of relativity. Sensory observation was a key component of the validation of Einstein's theory. Again, nothing fallacious here.

My final sentence, "This way of knowing is much more pervasive than even science. It doesn’t have the glamour of science or the creative power of science, at least seemingly so, but its power in our lives is undeniable." All this means is that epistemology goes beyond just science. In fact, most of what we know is through the testimony of others. This obviously includes science, but is much more than just science. My argument in this thread depends on testimony, sensory experience, and logic (inductive inference). That said there is also some scientific data that supports the argument, but my argument doesn't rely on science because there is no need to make the inference based on science. Why? Because much of consciousness is beyond the scope of what is known in much of science. So, I would agree with Chalmers in that the hard problem remains, even though we would disagree on how the answers to the hard problem would work themselves out.

My point in this post is to demonstrate that there were no fallacies that I'm aware of in the first paragraph, that seems clear. @180 Proof throws out these these kinds of statements as though he has a valid point, but nothing could be further from the truth. At least some people have put forth arguments.

Most of what people tell us about their sensory experiences is trustworthy. — Sam26

What does sensory experience have to do with NDEs? Do you think that people 'seeing' things when their brain is in a very abnormal state is a matter of light striking their retinas, nerve impulses propagating up their optic nerves, and their occipital lobes forming images that are a function of the pattern of light striking the retina?

What does sensory experience have to do with NDEs? Do you think that people 'seeing' things when their brain is in a very abnormal state is a matter of light striking their retinas, nerve impulses propagating up their optic nerves, and their occipital lobes forming images that are a function of the pattern of light striking the retina? — wonderer1

The point is that relying on testimonial evidence is part of our epistemological system, and if you disagree with the testimony you have to give good reasons why the testimony of millions of people in various contexts and with various worldviews is unreliable.

Sensory experience has everything to do with NDEs because people claim that they're seeing, hearing, etc. while being out of their bodies. They claim that their sensory experiences are expanded beyond the body, and in my research, this is corroborated by doctors, nurses, friends, and family members who were there.

Don't you think it makes sense to distinguish between sensory experience that involves the operation of sensory organs that provide us with information about the world around us, and 'seeing things' in a sense that doesn't involve the operation of sensory organs?

Isn't it quite reasonable to be skeptical of such 'seeing things'?

Don't you think it makes sense to distinguish between sensory experience that involves the operation of sensory organs that provide us with information about the world around us, and 'seeing things' in a sense that doesn't involve the operation of sensory organs? — wonderer1

I do make the distinction to argue that consciousness extends beyond the body.

Isn't it quite reasonable to be skeptical of such 'seeing things'? — wonderer1

Whether it's reasonable or not depends on what you think you know. I don't expect people to come to the same conclusion unless they've done more than a cursory study of the evidence. Many who claim to have studied the subject, haven't. I can determine this just by having a short conversation. It can be reasonable based on what you believe you know. Everyone's cash of knowledge is different, so not everyone will agree. Skepticism has its place in philosophy as long as it's not too radical (global).

Feel better? :smirk: