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. — AmadeusD
It's also quite fun, so I really appreciate you making a thorough response in good faith there. Unsure why Sam got upset tbh. — AmadeusD
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. — AmadeusD
This seems to suggest that it's OK to believe any theory that isn't provably false. That may not be what you meant, because you followed with: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... — AmadeusD
What does it mean to "hold" a theory, but not have it take precedence?...They just shouldn't take precedence.
just a separate consideration before we jump onto the idea that we're only correlating — Philosophim
Do you have the conscious experience of homunculusly controlling a meat puppet through some sort of communication channel? If so, what do the controls (that homunculus-you uses to control meat puppet-you) looks like? — wonderer1
This seems to suggest that it's OK to believe any theory that isn't provably false. — Relativist
What does it mean to "hold" a theory, but not have it take precedence? — Relativist
a theory can only be rationally held if it is arguably the "best explanation" — Relativist
Even so, that is often too low a bar to compel belief in it — Relativist
I was simply asking for clarification of what you meant, because I had not drawn the "clear inference" you thought I should. I think I understand now. Sorry to bother you.I made no attempt to even intimate 'belief' in what I was trying to say. Apologies if this post comes off combative - I feel words were put in my mouth. — AmadeusD
Sorry to bother you. — Relativist
Although I believe in life after death, I think NDEs are not good evidence for it. They seem better explained as dreams. — Clearbury
'consciousness' survives death, rather than 'the person' or 'the mind' survives death? I am not a consciousness. i am a person. I am conscious a lot of the time (though unconscious some of it). When I am unconscious I am not non-existent. I exist, but I am just not conscious. So 'consciousness' and 'a person' are not equivalent. My quibble, then, is that it is persons or minds (I use the terms interchangeably) who survive death, not 'consciousness' (consiousness is something persons have, but it is not what a person 'is'). — Clearbury
Although I believe in life after death, I think NDEs are not good evidence for it. They seem better explained as dreams. — Clearbury
:up: :up:When I am unconscious I am not non-existent. I exist, but I am just not conscious. So 'consciousness' and 'a person' are not equivalent. My quibble, then, is that it is persons or minds (I use the terms interchangeably) who survive death, not 'consciousness' (consiousness is something persons have, but it is not what a person 'is').
:roll: In other words, there was no "NDE" just a non-ordinary experience of a living person that is misattributed by her and then on rare occasions circumstantially corroborated by other living persons (e.g. like sober witnesses to a black-out drunk's shenanigans). Of course, forensically, eyewitness testimony² like introspection¹ is usually unreliable as evidence.The main difference is that they can be corroborated by others who were there. — Sam26
I believe that there is some element of consciousness in most if not all living things. I also believe that consciousness is at the heart of reality and that all of us ultimately come from this core consciousness. — Sam26
:up: :up:Why don't they kill themselves? They're telling us death is nothing to be afraid of and benefits us hugely....yet they seem reluctant to die. Actions speak louder than words. — Clearbury
But they're not synonyms - one is a state of a thing and one is the thing itself. But anyway, I suppose that's just a terminological issue (actually, I think it reflects the 'mind is the brain' view currently dominant, where it is consciousness that is what is distinctive about the brain, as opposed to there being a soul that has the consciousness). — Clearbury
There are two types of NDEs that you seem to be conflating. There are those that involve floating about in the room. Those are the ones that, supposedly, others can corroborate - though I think there's no hard evidence of such corroboration. Plus, just as we incorporate alarm sounds into dreams, nothing stops the same happening in these scenarios. — Clearbury
Then there are the NDEs where people seem to have the experience of travelling to a different realm. Those are not corroborated. There's a similarity among these experiences, but there's a lot of similarity between dreams too, and the similarity does not seem significantly greater. — Clearbury
So why don't they kill themselves and encourage others to do likewise? That is what we would typically do if we find a beautiful place - we try and revisit it and encourage others to do likewise. These people claim to know, in a way that the rest of us do not, what lies in wait for us the other side of death. And they claim it is wonderful. Yet they seem reluctant - more reluctant, if anything, than the general population - to go back there. That's very peculiar to me. — Clearbury
From a philosophical perspective, it might be instructive to consider the Buddhist view — Wayfarer
You also haven't addressed my evidence that thsoe who have the latter NDEs don't really believe in them. — Clearbury
I don't think that follows. We have a natural inclination to keep on living, so this could get in the way of suicide. — Relativist
I'm afraid I have to disagree with the dominant view. The mind as I use it is, for all practical purposes, is synonymous with consciousness. — Sam26
I don't know why you would say supposedly corroborate, the data on this is overwhelming — Sam26
I've read over 5000 accounts of NDEs, and what you'll find is that many people who have an NDE don't want to come back to this life, but they're told they must return because their objectives for coming here aren't complete. — Sam26
The evidence is much stronger than any religious point of view. — Sam26
A new person does not emerge in me every morning.... — Clearbury
You're sure about that? We're all constantly changing, day by day, moment by moment. There is continuity, but also change. Many of the cells in your body are renewed regularly. That is one of the fascinating things about the nature of identity. — Wayfarer
Yes. As is everyone else. Do you think you die when you go to sleep? — Clearbury
Fair enough. As I've said many times in this thread, I think research into children with memories of previous lives is corroborative in some ways to NDE reports. Both indicate modes of being beyond physical birth and death. — Wayfarer
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.