But it does assume the division between object and subject ... — Wayfarer

Sam's claim that:

... we survive death as individuals, but we return to our true nature, which is not human. — Sam26

and:

Our identity is not in this avatar (so to speak) but is connected with our higher self — Sam26

is that there is a self distinct from the body.Out of body experience is not the experience of a non-differentiated, generalized consciousness but the experience of an individual subject.

And there certainly is such a stance as dogmatic scientism — Wayfarer

Science and scientism are not the same.

for physicalism, the laws of physics are both immutable and fundamental. — Wayfarer

There are several different issues here that you have lumped together. First, physicalism is a broad term that does not identify a single agreed upon set of claims. Second, there is the question of whether a distinction is being made between the laws of nature and the laws of physics.Third, immutability is not a settled issue.

The theoretical physicist Lee Smolin challenges this assumption. Rather than timeless laws, Smolin holds that time is prior to laws. In a paper "Temporal Naturalism: Time and Laws in Cosmology"
he quotes Paul Dirac:

At the beginning of time the laws of Nature were probably very different from what they are now. Thus, we should consider the laws of Nature as continually changing with the epoch, instead of as holding uniformly throughout space-time.

and Richard Feynman:

The only field which has not admitted any evolutionary question is physics. Here are the laws, we say,...but how did they get that way, in time?...So, it might turn out that they are not the same [laws] all the time and that there is a historical, evolutionary, question.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07EYacr3rBg&t=3347s

I came back to my original argument because of a debate I saw between Dr. Sean Carroll and Dr. Steven Novella vs Dr. Eban Alexander and Dr. Raymond Moody. Sean and Stevan are much better debaters than Eban and Raymond, so I thought Sean and Steven won the debate. Frankly, I was disappointed in Raymond Moody because as a philosopher he should’ve done a better job. He started to make an epistemological point (like I do) but didn’t follow through.

Both Dr. Carroll and Dr. Novella are presenting arguments similar in many ways to the arguments people are trying to use against me in this thread. We know that the brain generates consciousness, therefore NDEs are generated by the brain. So, by definition, consciousness is generated by the brain. Their point is that there’s a causal relation between the brain and consciousness, it’s settled science for Sean and Steven and many materialists, not all materialists but many.

My counterargument is that they’re confusing correlation with causation. I would say that it’s settled science that there’s a correlation between the brain and consciousness, but not causation just as there’s a correlation between what we hear from a radio and the radio itself. We know that the sound isn’t generated by the radio even though we can make many correlations between the sound and the radio. Someone primitive might believe the radio is causing the sound, but we know there is something else involved, viz., the radio's antenna picks up electromagnetic waves transmitted by radio stations. Of course, on my side of the argument, I can’t point to anything like an electromagnetic wave that would cause consciousness, so I look at other kinds of evidence, viz., testimonial evidence. Testimonial evidence is one of the main ways we come to know most of what we know. Testimony is not science, although sometimes the data collected can be science. There are the beginnings of scientific data in some NDE research, but more needs to be done. However, I rely on logic and testimonial evidence to make what I believe is a strong inductive rational argument for my conclusion, viz., consciousness survives the death of the body. I don’t define the argument in such a way that no amount of testimonial evidence can make a persuasive case against my conclusion. The arguments against my conclusion (most of the arguments especially the ones by Dr. Carroll and Dr. Novella) are clearly fallacious. They’re self-sealing in that all testimonial evidence is rejected out of hand. No amount of counterevidence (testimonial evidence) can be enough to counter their definition of consciousness, viz., that consciousness is a brain function. Note that when you give testimonial evidence to the contrary it’s never good enough. It can always be explained by the brain, even though they’re just guessing or surmising that the brain, even when in a condition that probably wouldn’t generate the detail of an NDE, is producing the NDE. According to them, there must be some level of brain activity to explain why people are having the experience, even if they can’t explain what activity that is. All they do is guess at what might be causing these experiences, and all they’re saying is that the brain produces consciousness, therefore you’re wrong. These are weak arguments at best. They can keep repeating the mantra that the brain causes consciousness but that doesn’t make it so. Correlation doesn’t mean causation.

To reject my argument, you have to reject that testimonial evidence is a valid form of knowing apart from science. This doesn’t mean that because people tell us that they’ve been abducted by aliens that’s good testimonial evidence because it’s not. All good testimonial evidence must be evaluated rigorously. As I’ve said in other posts it’s what a good detective would do, and it takes a lot of work and comparing the data collected. To compare the testimonial evidence of abductions to the testimonial evidence of NDEs is a complete misunderstanding of good testimonial evidence.

To compare the testimonial evidence of abductions to the testimonial evidence of NDEs is a complete misunderstanding of good testimonial evidence. — Sam26

Explain why you think "testimonial evidence of alien abductions" is not "good testimonial evidence". :smirk:

Sam's claim that:

... we survive death as individuals, but we return to our true nature, which is not human.
— Sam26

and:

Our identity is not in this avatar (so to speak) but is connected with our higher self
— Sam26

is that there is a self distinct from the body. Out of body experience is not the experience of a non-differentiated, generalized consciousness but the experience of an individual subject. — Fooloso4

That is only a re-statement of beliefs that have been pretty well universal at one time or another throughout history. Of course that is no guarantee of them bring true. But consider the historical context. As Hans Jonas says in the essay previously mentioned, for the ancients 'Soul (or 'life') flooded the whole of existence and encountered itself in all things. Bare matter, that is, truly inanimate, "dead" matter, was yet to be discovered - as indeed its concept, so familiar to us, is anything but obvious.' That watershed didn't arrive until the Renaissance and the ascendancy of materialism proper, the idea of a solely material universe acting in accordance with physical forces. Within that context, Jonas says, life becomes the anomaly and inert matter the norm. You see that writ large in this debate. Imagine if you were time-transported back to the 13th century to proclaim that the body is only physical and that there were no soul. You would be ridiculed and ignored (and quite possibly executed) in line with the dogma of the day. Now those so bold as to proclaim that the living soul is more than the body are ridiculed and ignored. Every educated person is presumed to know that there is no reality beyond the material. That's what I mean by 'dogma'. We've erected bulwarks against what we regard as the supernatural.

Sam mentions the idea of the body as a 'receiver' or 'transmitter' akin to a television. Why is that necessarily a daft idea? What if, from the very earliest stirrings of organic existence, organic life is the means by which consciousness painstakingly takes form? 'What is latent becomes patent', to quote a Hindu aphorism. Of course we don't think like that, we think the issue can only be viewed through the lens of the so-called objective sciences. We start with the presumption that life and mind can be explained in terms of physical and chemical forces, and then will only consider what is amenable to that approach.

To reject my argument, you have to reject that testimonial evidence is a valid form of knowing apart from science. — Sam26

Perhaps there are kinds of knowing which are only accessible in the first person, which can't be reproduced in third-person terms or subjected to that kind of arms-lengh analysis. I already mentioned Sean Carroll's fallacious ruminations on the nature of soul in an earlier post.

Science and scientism are not the same. — Fooloso4

Ain't that the truth.

To compare the testimonial evidence of abductions to the testimonial evidence of NDEs is a complete misunderstanding of good testimonial evidence.
— Sam26
Explain why you think "testimonial evidence of alien abductions" is not "good testimonial evidence". — 180 Proof

That is a good question, and I believe part of the answer can be seen in good detective work. If all you have to work with is the testimony of a person or persons, then you have to ask yourself several questions.
1) Was the person in a position to know? Was the person there? Is the testimonial evidence firsthand or secondhand?
2) Can the evidence be corroborated, which can give us an objective way to verify its accuracy?
3) How many reports do we have that are firsthand?
4) Are the reports generally consistent? This helps to identify the truthfulness of the reports. The reports don’t need to be 100% accurate, but they do need to be more consistent than not. Even if you have a 60% or 70% accuracy, you’ll still get a good idea of what’s happening. For example, if we have 100 people reporting what they saw at a concert and 60% reporting X, Y, and Z, then we can be relatively certain that X, Y, and Z happened. Even if the other 30 or 40% are reporting things that the others didn’t see or hear. In other words, you can take what the majority of people are reporting and infer that that’s what probably took place.
5) Do we have a variety of reports to choose from that are reporting the same things? The more variety added to the consistency strengthens the reports.
6) There are many other factors to consider. For example, the character of those who are reporting the events. Do they have something to gain? Are they lying, etc?

These are just some of the things to consider. This is not meant to be exhaustive.

The one thing that stands out to me when considering alien abductions is that almost none of them can be corroborated. This is probably the biggest negative against these claims. You can’t go and talk to others who were at the scene to verify the accuracy of the claims. On the other hand, NDEs can and are being corroborated by doctors, nurses, friends, and family members. Many alien abductions consist of very vague memories and some of the memories are accessed through hypnosis, which makes them questionable at best.

Many of the abductions occur as sleep-related events or in isolated locations, which is why there is seldom if ever any good corroboration. This means that there is little to no way to objectively verify the events.

It’s also interesting that most of the alien abduction reports started happening in the 60’s when more and more reports of UFOs were happening. Alien abductions are not a historical phenomenon. NDEs have been reported as far back as Plato (the supposed Myth of Er, 380 BC), The Tibetan Book of the Dead (8th century), and the Egyptian Book of the Dead (around 1550 BC), so it has more of a historical context.

There are a lot more weaknesses in alien abductions, but this is a start.

That is only a re-statement of beliefs that have been pretty well universal at one time or another throughout history. — Wayfarer

Right, the same assumption that in one form or another underlies:

the division between object and subject — Wayfarer

much of science. The point, however, is that for Sam there is a distinct, enduring, imperishable "higher self". Perhaps I am wrong, but this does not seem to square with your understanding of the:

principle of no-self (anatta) — Wayfarer

What if, from the very earliest stirrings of organic existence, organic life is the means by which consciousness painstakingly takes form? — Wayfarer

It sounds like you have gone over to the dark side! Non-reductive materialism. Consciousness is dependent on the existence of organisms. Organisms in turn is dependent on the inorganic material necessary for plant life. In a word, naturalism.

:smirk:

Sam mentions the idea of the body as a 'receiver' or 'transmitter' akin to a television. Why is that necessarily a daft idea? — Wayfarer

It's not necessarily daft. However, in light of modern scientific understanding of the nature of brains, and the sort of information processing that can occur in neural networks, it's unparsimonious. I.e. "I have no need of that hypothesis."

Consciousness is dependent on the existence of organisms. — Fooloso4

However, in light of modern scientific understanding of the nature of brains, and the sort of information processing that can occur in neural networks, it's unparsimonious. I.e. "I have no need of that hypothesis." — wonderer1

But there is no theory of 'how brains generate consciousness', which actually is an implication of the 'hard problem of consciousness.' It is assumed that consciousness is a product of organic evolution, but what if the appearance of life just is the appearance of the very 'first-person' perspective which defies objective or third-person description? In other words, organisms are dependent on the activities of consciousness. Mind (or consciousness) is causal, a latent drive towards higher levels of intelligence and awareness which manifests as organic life. The reason this view is not materialistic is because it assigns a causal role to intelligence, albeit not necessarily concieved of as a 'divine architect' but more like:

God, according to (the Stoics), "did not make the world as an artisan does his work, but it is by wholly penetrating all matter that He is the demiurge of the universe" (Galen, "De qual. incorp." in "Fr. Stoic.", ed. von Arnim, II, 6); He penetrates the world "as honey does the honeycomb" (Tertullian, "Adv. Hermogenem", 44), this God so intimately mingled with the world is fire or ignited air; inasmuch as He is the principle controlling the universe, He is called Logos; and inasmuch as He is the germ from which all else develops, He is called the seminal Logos (logos spermatikos). This Logos is at the same time a force and a law, an irresistible force which bears along the entire world and all creatures to a common end, an inevitable and holy law from which nothing can withdraw itself, and which every reasonable man should follow willingly (Cleanthus, "Hymn to Zeus" in "Fr. Stoic." I, 527-cf. 537). — New Advent Enclyclopedia

If that sounds like vitalism, perhaps so, with the caveat that mind/consciousness is never something that can be known objectively. You can't know it, because it is what knows. So there is no such 'vital essence' in an objective sense.

All that said, I've never questioned the biological account of evolution, only what implications can be drawn from it. If you've never accepted the idea that the Biblical creation myth is literally true, then the fact that it's not literally true is not (contra Dawkins) that big of a deal.

The point, however, is that for Sam there is a distinct, enduring, imperishable "higher self". Perhaps I am wrong, but this does not seem to square with your understanding of the:

principle of no-self (anatta)
— Wayfarer — Fooloso4

It's true that Buddhism doesn't teach in terms of 'higher self' but they don't deny the reality of rebirth. Beings are understood as being caught up in an involuntary and endless cycle of rebirth. I mentioned before a book by Sam Bercholz, the proprietor of Shabhala Books, a major published of Buddhist titles, who's near-death experience after open-heart surgery revealed a vision of hell, which he published a book about, A Guided Tour of Hell. As to whether the Buddha exists after death, that is one of the 'unanswerable questions'.

the division between object and subject
— Wayfarer — Fooloso4

What I'm getting at there, is the division that arises in early modern science, with Galileo, Newton, Descartes et al. The division of the universe into the objective realm of primary qualities measurable by science, and the relegation of mind to the inner or subjective domain. And then the sense that the world is devoid of meaning and purpose because of that division. The 'Cartesian anxiety'. This becomes more than a theory, it becomes an existential state, and not necessarily a happy one.

But there is no theory of 'how brains generate consciousness'... — Wayfarer

You are thinking in black and white terms.

First off, we should be talking about a theory of minds, rather than mind.

Secondly, I certainly have a rough working hypothesis that has a lot of predictive strengths. Of course, it is certainly not anything like a complete theory. There is an enormous amount still to be learned, and good reason to doubt that any human could actually grasp what might (on some unknown criteria) be considered a finished theory of minds.

Thirdly, the fact that you don't have much of a working hypothesis yourself, seems like something that you might want to correct.

But there is no theory of 'how brains generate consciousness' — Wayfarer

Once again:

Throughout history, time after time, claims of the supernatural as the only viable "explanation" for a wide variety of phenomena have given way to natural, rational, demonstrable, transmissible scientific knowledge. — Fooloso4

Cognitive science is a new interdisciplinary science. The fact that it has not yet developed a generally accepted theory hardly serves as evidence that it cannot or will not.

Mind (or consciousness) is causal, a latent drive towards higher levels of intelligence and awareness which manifests as organic life. — Wayfarer

This is an assertion not a theory is the sense in which you fault science for lacking.

It's true that Buddhism doesn't teach in terms of 'higher self' but they don't deny the reality of rebirth. — Wayfarer

That may be, but an appeal to a Buddhist teaching does not resolve the objections raised against Sam's claims.

What I'm getting at there, is the division that arises in early modern science ... — Wayfarer

Some of us are quite familiar with this well rehearsed story, but it is not what is at issue in this thread.

Cognitive science is a new interdisciplinary science. The fact that it has not yet developed a generally accepted theory hardly serves as evidence that it cannot or will not. — Fooloso4

It's a matter of principle. This is the point of the original 'facing up to the problem of consciousness' essay. Consciousness can be studied as a phenomenon, via cognitive studies, but consciousness as the first-person ground of experience is not an objective phenomenon nor among objective phenomenon. Neuroscientically-inclined types such as Wonderer will be exasperated, 'how do you know it is not solvable?' 'The hard problem' is not a problem in search of a solution, but a rhetorical argument which indicates the inherent limitations of objective science with respect to a philosophical question, which is the nature of being ('what it is like to be...').

What I'm getting at there, is the division that arises in early modern science ...
— Wayfarer

Some of us are quite familiar with this well rehearsed story, but it is not what is at issue in this thread. — Fooloso4

It has a considerable bearing on the issue.

the fact that you don't have much of a working hypothesis yourself, seems like something that you might want to correct. — wonderer1

You wouldn't read or recognise the point of the 'blind spot of science' article that I frequently reference in this context, would you. If by any chance you're interested, regardless, I'll provide the link to it.

The underlying point I'm trying to get it in all this is the nature and limits of objectivity, and of whether what can be objectively known and demonstrated exhausts what is really the case. And the reason that is relevant, is because of the frequent demand that the contents of NDE's be objectively demonstrable. It is assumed as a matter of course that if they're not objectively demonstrable, then they can only have a subjective reality. I'm working on fleshing out a philosophical framework which provides an alternative to this supposed dilemma.

Mind (or consciousness) is causal, a latent drive towards higher levels of intelligence and awareness which manifests as organic life.
— Wayfarer

This is an assertion not a theory is the sense in which you fault science for lacking. — Fooloso4

The way the issue is invariably framed is that matter is fundamental, and so consciousness can only be thought of as a product of (epiphenomenon, emergent feature) of matter. But it is precisely that causal connection between matter and consciousness which is a point at issue. I'm not providing a theory about that, only pointing out an alternative. No doubt there'll be someone working on it.

... consciousness as the first-person ground of experience is not an objective phenomenon — Wayfarer

My experience is not yours but this is not a good reason to doubt that other people are conscious. Anesthesiology has developed into a science with generally reliable results, even though it is not the anesthesiologist who is being anesthetized. Brain mapping continues to become more and more predictive of what someone will experience when certain regions are stimulated or what is lost when damage occurs to a region.

It has a considerable bearing on the issue. — Wayfarer

Human understanding is not fixed and unchanging. The limits early modern science are well known and are not a permanent limit to present and future science.

It is assumed as a matter of course that if they're not objectively demonstrable, then they can only have a subjective reality. — Wayfarer

Let's put aside talk of objectivity and subjectivity and consider the problem of gullibility. On what basis are we to accept various claims? Surely, you do not believe every claim you hear.

I'm not providing a theory about that, only pointing out an alternative. — Wayfarer

So, there is no theory of how brains generate consciousness and no theory of an alternative either. The appeal to an alternative seems to be based on a desire for meaning that transcends human meaning. It seems as if you have lost sight of the human dimension by setting your sights beyond man. As if human life in all its dimensions is not enough, that true meaning must lie elsewhere.

, are you familiar with the sort of psychological conditions associated with black and white thinking?

My theory of consciousness is similar in some ways to Donald Hoffman's. There are differences, for example, I’m not sure that you can use a mathematical model to describe consciousness on a fundamental level, which he’s attempting to do. The reason is that mathematics, for me, is something that is either generated by consciousness/mind or that eternally exists as part of the fundamental nature of consciousness. Also, Hoffman and others want to say that core consciousness is outside space (it may be outside space, although I’m not sure) and time, but I think time is fundamental on some level with consciousness. I believe it’s contradictory to say that a mind could exist outside all time. It may be that the core mind is outside what we experience as space and time, but it’s not completely outside time. For example, if consciousness created our reality, the one we find ourselves in, then there would have to be a point X before that creation, otherwise, what would it even mean to say that the mind created this reality? You couldn’t even make sense of creating outside time, what would create even mean? The word create seems to imply definitionally something temporal, i.e., before the creation and after the creation.

I want to say that core consciousness or even our consciousness on an individual level cannot be doubted, it’s like trying to doubt that you exist. Our doubts show or demonstrate our existence. In a very important sense consciousness is the hinge of existence (to use Wittgensteinian language). Existence swings on the hinge of consciousness. It requires no justification. It just is. It’s the presuppositional axiom of existence.

I do believe we are individuals that are part of the core mind, i.e., we are individuals that are connected with the core. My theory or model is based on my extensive study of many thousands of NDEs and the reports of those experiences, which I believe are veridical.

The core consciousness is constantly creating experiences for the innumerable conscious beings that are associated with the core mind. The core mind experiences the totality of experiences of each mind. In this way, the core is constantly having new experiences, and we will also continue to experience new things as we choose to have the experiences generated by the core. So, we can experience any reality that is created by consciousness. Moreover, the essence of who we are cannot be harmed by any of the realities we enter.



Donald Hoffman on Consciousness and Conscious Agents

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIxz9pyHukA

Existence swings on the hinge of consciousness. It requires no justification. It just is. It’s the presuppositional axiom of existence. — Sam26

Existence itself is absolutely presupposed, and therefore requires no justification; also, it's self-contradictory to assume that 'IS possibly is not'. Existence "just is" the hinge on which all existing swings. Your inversion, Sam, assumes an unwarranted 'dualism' that is both incoherent and unparsimonious. Spinozism had refuted 'Cartesian duality' over three centuries ago.and Berkeley's 'subjective idealism' is clearly question-begging (see Kant's critique).

I do believe we are individuals that are part of the core mind, i.e., we are individuals that are connected with the core ... The core consciousness is constantly creating experiences for the innumerable conscious beings that are associated with the core mind ... the essence of who we are cannot be harmed ....

This :sparkle: "core mind, core consciousness" :sparkle: reminds me very much of the sage woo--woo of an ancient Jedi Master:

For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter.  You must feel the Force around you; here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere, yes. 

*

Deceive you, eyes can. In the Force, very different each of you is.

*

Death is a natural part of life, rejoice for those around you who transform into the Force.

*

Twilight is upon me, and soon night must fall. that is the way of things. The way of the Force. — Sayings of Yoda

In sum: "NDEs" = temporary FORCE GHOSTS. :sweat:

Funny opinions, but that's about all it is. :grin:

In a very important sense consciousness is the hinge of existence (to use Wittgensteinian language). Existence swings on the hinge of consciousness. It requires no justification. It just is. — Sam26

According to you hinges:

...are just very basic kinds of beliefs within our forms of life. — Sam26

In that case existence is a belief. Outside our forms of life then nothing exists. The problem with this kind of idealism is that the idealist must exist. The idealist's existence cannot be dependent on her idealism.

Naturalism is the view that all that exists is the natural world that is perceived with, but exists independently of, our senses or tools which extend them. — Lee Smolin

Temporal Naturalism

The idealist's existence cannot be dependent on her idealism. — Fooloso4

True, but @Sam26 (the Jedi) might be a solipsist ..

My counterargument is that they’re confusing correlation with causation. I would say that it’s settled science that there’s a correlation between the brain and consciousness, but not causation just as there’s a correlation between what we hear from a radio and the radio itself. We know that the sound isn’t generated by the radio even though we can make many correlations between the sound and the radio. — Sam26

I am glad to see an argument like this Sam. Keep approaching it from different angles. While of course the people responding to you think we're right in some aspects, looking at it from different angles is always valuable to make sure we're not missing anything.

We have to be careful not to go the other way around as well, or "Confuse causation with correlation". The sound from a radio IS generated from a radio. There is a clear mechanical process. What you mean is that the radio signal is not produced from the radio. And you would be right there.

This is a point I made earlier that may have been forgotten. If there is evidence of consciousness existing outside of the body, then there should be evidence of consciousness existing outside of the body. The reason why a person could eventually deduce that the radio receives a signal is because of how the radio works. You could experiment on it for hours trying different things and you would eventually see that when you interrupt the antenai with something, the radio keeps making a sound, but its not a clear message anymore.

Further, you could take the radio to different locations and find the same would happen. So you would start to make hypotheses. One such hypothesis would be, "Is the location or objects I put on the antenae interfering with something? And of course, research would eventually reveal, "Yes".

But what evidence do we have that our consciousness comes from somewhere else? None so far. Our consciousness works no matter what we put over our brains, and no matter where we go. If we do interrupt consciousness through drugs for example, we see its a clear impact on brain function. Its not that the brain continues to function at a same or similar rate when the drugs are applied like an inhibitor, but it seems to affect the brain process itself.

Meaning that the evidence which we do have points not to some type of thing outside of the body, but a mechanical process of the brain. Go watch an example of brain surgery. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAFbM6Zhz7k All of this surgery was possible with the assumption that the brain is the locus of consciousness. Generally in history, when we don't completely understand a process, we run into problems of application. Read this theory on phlogiston theory on fire that was eventually replaced with oxygen theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory

Of course, on my side of the argument, I can’t point to anything like an electromagnetic wave that would cause consciousness, so I look at other kinds of evidence, viz., testimonial evidence. — Sam26

If a radio told you, "No, I don't receive a signal from elsewhere, I generate all my messages within me," does that mean its right? It sure feels that way, but we know that's not true. Testimonial evidence only explains a subjective interpretation of a situation. And people subjective interpretation of things is no indication of its truth as an objective reality, only the truth in that is what people feel. There are plenty of people who feel there is a God, but is that objectively true? No. There are plenty of people who believe 9-11 was an inside job, that they saw the building was hit in such a way as there had to be some internal explosive beyond the plane. They are objectively wrong.

They’re self-sealing in that all testimonial evidence is rejected out of hand. No amount of counterevidence (testimonial evidence) can be enough to counter their definition of consciousness, viz., that consciousness is a brain function. — Sam26

That is not because they don't like the testimony or don't want to accept it. They accept that that is how people feel. Just like a radio may feel with all of its heart that its thinking and generating the messages it spits out, even though we know its comes from a radio tower. Its because the question of objective consciousness has been found despite what one thinks about it. Despite the fact you may believe you live forever, the evidence clearly shows you don't. You might believe your experience of floating above the bed means you actually did, but objective tests show you didn't. That's why the testimony is no good. Its a starter to explore and test for its objectivity, but has failed every time.

They can keep repeating the mantra that the brain causes consciousness but that doesn’t make it so. Correlation doesn’t mean causation. — Sam26

Its not a mantra, its scientific fact tested over countless decades that continue to point to the conclusion that your brain generates consciousness. You are doing the opposite believing that causation is correlation, when you have no evidence that it is correlation.

Keep thinking about it.

Can you be any more condescending? I'll refrain from saying what I want and leave it at that.

I read this as great feedback...you are onto something, Sam26. Now I am curious to why you are refraining from saying what you want? You are right, though. It's wise to refrain at this point [lacking intel, yet], but why are you refraining before you "know" why you are, exactly? That is of interest...

Can you be any more condescending? I'll refrain from saying what I want and leave it at that. — Sam26

I genuinely don't understand how I was condescending. I think you read an intention into that I did not mean to convey. I'm going to assume you're not just putting an accusation out there to avoid the argument I made, as you've addressed my points before. So my apologies if this came across as insulting, but that does not negate the argument put forth. If you believe my points are wrong, why?

Here's the crux:

Testimonial evidence only explains a subjective interpretation of a situation. And people's subjective interpretation of things is no indication of its truth as an objective reality, only the truth in that is what people feel. There are plenty of people who feel there is a God, but is that objectively true? No. — Philosophim

:100: :up:

The identification of anything is subjective and relative to convention. E.g, we don't get hung up about whether or not today's chair is said to be same as tomorrows chair, so why should we treat persons as having objective haecceity ?

Tibetan monks might have their politico-cultural reasons for objecting to the Chinese government choosing the next Dalai Lama, but do they really have a metaphysical leg to stand on?

Tibetan monks might have their politico-cultural reasons for objecting to the Chinese government choosing the next Dalai Lama, but do they really have a metaphysical leg to stand on? — sime

The monks are standing on the leg of their own metaphysical theory, aren't they?

An interesting new study. NDEs have been compared to effects of psychedelics before, but those comparisons were "inter-subject": they compared reports of NDE experiences and psychedelic experiences in different people. For this study, the authors surveyed subjects who had experienced both.

Mystical-like states of consciousness may arise through means such as psychedelic substances, but may also occur unexpectedly during near-death experiences (NDEs). So far, research studies comparing experiences induced by serotonergic psychedelics and NDEs, along with their enduring effects, have employed between-subject designs, limiting direct comparisons. We present results from an online survey exploring the phenomenology, attribution of reality, psychological insights, and enduring effects of NDEs and psychedelic experiences (PEs) in individuals who have experienced both at some point during their lifetime. We used frequentist and Bayesian analyses to determine significant differences and overlaps (evidence for null hypotheses) between the two. Thirty-one adults reported having experienced both an NDE (i.e., NDE-C scale total score ≥27/80) and a PE (intake of LSD, psilocybin/mushrooms, ayahuasca, DMT or mescaline). Results revealed areas of overlap between both experiences for phenomenology, attribution of reality, psychological insights, and enduring effects. A finer-grained analysis of the phenomenology revealed significant overlap in mystical-like effects, while low-level phenomena (sensory effects) were significantly different, with NDEs displaying higher scores of disembodiment and PEs higher scores of visual imagery. This suggests psychedelics as a useful model for studying mystical-like effects induced by NDEs, while highlighting distinctions in sensory experiences. — Martial, Charlotte & Carhart-Harris, Robin & Timmermann, Christopher. (2024). Within-subject comparison of near-death and psychedelic experiences: acute and enduring effects. Neuroscience of Consciousness

Thanks for the article. I have long wondered about this connection when thinking back at my experiences with peyote as a young man. The reported experience of relative 'disembodiment' came up a lot amongst fellow travelers.

I hope to avoid entering the sample group of the other side of the study.

it's unparsimonious — wonderer1

I think this is a little bit of a red herring when it comes to theorizing in teh way we do here (or, philosophy in general). I think if the theory has no knock-downs, we can hold unparsimonious theories. They just shouldn't take precedence. But, the "brain-as-receiver" theory is as old as time and has some explanatory power so I like that it's not being written off.

While I hear this argument as strong, it is actually not all that clear and decisive imo. Your analogy between radiowaves and consciousness(waves?) doesn't hold very well at all. It works on the surface, but we know so little about consciousness that to assume it would behave the same way in those contextual scenarios, as radiowaves, is certainly beginning to look like bad reasoning. That said, as above, it's still one of the further-down-the-list ones. All we do know about the brain can still obtain if the 'receiver' type of theory is in some way true (i.e in some way, consciousness is received by the brain..). It's also quite fun, so I really appreciate you making a thorough response in good faith there. Unsure why Sam got upset tbh.