Of course they can’t report it. The brain controls the body. The mind seems to go elsewhere during these episodes. Those are the first-person reports. — Noah Te Stroete

Why would we believe that the mental activity in question isn't from the perceivable brain activity, though?

In other words, the person medically dies at 4:20. Then they're brought back at 4:24, whereupon they once again have perceivable brain activity. At 4:26, they report their NDE. Why would we conclude that the NDE didn't occur somewhere between 4:24 and 4:26?

There are many first-person accounts of people having near-death experiences, even after no perceivable brain activity. — Noah Te Stroete

How would there be a first-person account of a near-death experience without perceivable brain activity?

The person would have to have perceivable brain activity right before they were declared dead medically, right?

And then when they are medically brought back to life, they'd have to have perceivable brain activity again. After that is when they'd report the near-death experience.

It's not like they'd be able to report the near-death experience they're having while they're medically dead, while they have no perceivable brain activity.

I’m saying that I use the term metaphorically. — Noah Te Stroete

You're saying that you use "soul" metaphorically? For the metaphor, you're non-literally talking about what in terms of what?

It’s not literal. It’s proverbial and metaphorical. Like I said, no one is more fundamentalist than an atheist. — Noah Te Stroete

If you're saying that souls are fictional, that's fine. You're not thinking that I'd disagree with that, are you?

I don’t know how to communicate with you. — Noah Te Stroete

Hmm, okay.

The evidence for the proverbial soul is the ability to show empathy. — Noah Te Stroete

We just call that the ability to empathize. No need to make up nonsense like a "soul" for it.

I meant with respect to the first part: "I was speculating. I admitted that. I entertain all kinds of beliefs to see how they could fit into the big picture. I don’t dismiss things because they may sound outlandish to an atheist."

Why would you think that I "don't pay attention to subjective experiences."

I wouldn't dismiss anything extant as "unscientific."

That would be, well, unscientific, right?

Not that I "worship the sciences." Again, you haven't been paying much attention to my posts over the years if you think that. I don't even accept what seem to be standard scientific notions of space, time, etc.

I was speculating. I admitted that. I entertain all kinds of beliefs to see how they could fit into the big picture. I don’t dismiss things because they may sound outlandish to an atheist. I have subjective experiences that I cannot communicate. I’m trying to figure them out. I’m sorry that you’re too pig-headed to wander outside of the corral that Hume, Hitchens, and Dawkins set for you. — Noah Te Stroete

Well, or fantasizing, basically. I like doing that, too, but I don't take it to be something other than fantasizing.

Both of you worship science — Noah Te Stroete

That couldn't be more off the mark in my case.

It also has nothing to do with the comments I was making.

I don’t subscribe to scientism, and there are many widely held beliefs among scientists that there is no evidence for, such as the multiverse, that black holes retain information, that there is extraterrestrial life, different theories yet differing opinions about the expansion of the universe, etc. — Noah Te Stroete

I'm confused as to what that has to do with my comment and with the conversation we were having in general.

No, they’re not provable. That was my point. — Noah Te Stroete

So bringing up that we haven't excluded some possibility is irrelevant. It's a red herring.

The answer is that they're not.

Precluding possibilities is only relevant to proofs.

Empirical claims are not provable. Precluding possibilities is irrelevant to them. So that we haven't precluded a possibility in the context of an empirical claim is a red herring. It has nothing to do with support for an empirical claim, nothing to do with reasons to believe one claim over another, etc.

I suppose that’s logically correct. — Noah Te Stroete

Sure. So, are empirical claims provable?

You're not following:

You said, "Lack of evidence doesn’t preclude the possibility."

So we have the idea of precluding possibilities, right?

If we were to preclude all possibilities but one, that would be a proof, correct?

No — Noah Te Stroete

If we've precluded all possibilities but one, then that one thing can't be wrong, no?

Lack of evidence doesn’t preclude the possibility. — Noah Te Stroete

Excluding possibilities would amount to proving something, right?

And you’ve died already to say that that is clearly shown? — Noah Te Stroete

Died already? What are you talking about. It's clearly the case due to every bit of scientific evidence about consciousness, including all medical data.

How do you know that consciousness only occurs in brains? — Noah Te Stroete

By the complete absence of evidence of it occurring elsewhere. That's the same way that we know that Led Zeppelin music only occurs on Earth.

It is the case that physicalism has no answer and will never have an answer for consciousness. — Noah Te Stroete

That's not at all the case. Consciousness is very clearly a subset of brain function.

I happen to think that's precisely why they choose them. For instance there's something about physicalism that suits you that you don't find in other philosophies. — leo

I definitely do not choose any stance because I like it. In fact, I'd often prefer that other things were true. I choose stances based on what's the case.

I'm still interested in a response to this, by the way: "It's not even clear to me what open or closed-minded would amount to in a context like this. "

An unconscious person is unable to give consent. Only a conscious person can give consent. — Andrew4Handel

Sure. Do you understand the difference between whether we're talking about someone who can normally grant or withhold consent or not?

Ironically, you are doing this by posing shoddy argumentation. — schopenhauer1

Explain why it's shoddy in your view rather than just making the accusation.

The parents "feelings" matters not in regards to starting SOMEONE ELSE'S life. — schopenhauer1

What does this have to do with whether they're suffering, harmed, etc.?

Read a lot, and read increasingly challenging things.

Write a lot. Make sure you get feedback on your writing and don't just be defensive about it. It's important to learn how to take constructive criticism. Try to publish writing via traditional avenues, and try to get as much detailed feedback as you can from rejections. You'll receive tons of rejections no matter what you do. Those are good for you. Learn from them.

Talk frequently with other people interested in intellectual and/or academic topics.

If you're interested in fields that require making/producing things, whatever they are--technological stuff, artistic stuff, whatever--make sure that you're regularly creating, too.

Take classes geared towards all of the above, or at least participate in (and start if you need to) meet-up groups geared towards it. There are many affordable way to take classes, by the way.

I don't see a difference between an unconscious person unable to consent and a non existent person able to consent. — Andrew4Handel

The unconscious person is normally capable of granting or withholding consent. A "non-existent person"--in quotation marks because there is no such thing, isn't normally capable of granting or withholding consent.

I've already given him the main argument- no loss to an actual person, but harm was prevented. No agenda was had on behalf of another person. — schopenhauer1

The problem is that you want me to be having conversations about antinatalism in general, partially because you want to be able to keep repeating your telemarketing/cult-recruitment script about it ad infinitum.

Re your comment above, we've already discussed that. If a person wants to have kids but is pressured or forced not to, there is a loss, there is harm or suffering for them, per the way that you're using those terms. So "no loss to an actual person" is false.

Aside from that, there's no reason to only care about the harm side of the equation and not the benefit side of the equation.

Ok, that's good. I just know how these go sometimes. They eventually just lead to frustration as one side may not be trying to actually get anywhere. — schopenhauer1

My goal is to get you folks to reason better, to not forward crappy arguments, etc.

Let me ask you something. Is it moral to genetically modify a baby to ensure it suffers as much as possible. Say, by giving it 8 limbs all of which are broken. — khaled

My policy on actions performed on an entity that is currently not capable or granting or withholding consent, but that will likely survive as a consent-capable being, is that you'd not be allowed to unusually modify, outside of corrective measures for deformities, diseases, etc., or physically or psychologically abuse the non-consent-capable entity in a manner that would linger indefinitely/not be reversible during their consent-capable years. You can't overlook the word "unusual" there (as I'm predicting you'll do even with me pointing this out).

Alright. I am saying that subjectively childbirth should be wrong for you because it checks all your criteria for a subjectively wrong action — khaled

No it doesn't. It doesn't meet any criterion of consent. Babies are not creatures normally capable of granting or withholding consent, I don't even consider babies prior to the childbirth process being completed to be separate entities from mothers, and there's no physical damage that's present for days afterwards anyway, even if they were entities normally capable of granting or withholding consent.

Empirical claims aren't provable period--that's science methodology/phil of science 101.

And wrong in a moral sense is necessarily subjective.

The fact that they have a working brain. Also it's scientific fact. — khaled

Oy vey.

In other words, I'm asking you because there's no way that you can know that a baby experiences pain at childbirth. Having a working brain doesn't imply that--lol.

And it can't be a scientific fact, because there's no epistemic method for seeing whether it's the case or not.

The child experiences pain during childbirth. — khaled

Which you know via?

I used to be a materialist, and I see now how narrow-minded I was, so there's that. I don't know of many people who turned materialists later in life, sure there are examples of people who escaped indoctrination from organized religion and who find more peace of mind in materialism, but then these were more looking to escape certain people rather than a philosophy that doesn't see matter as primary.

Also, the ideas of 20th century physics would have been called fanciful by materialists in the centuries before, and they may be called fanciful again in the next centuries, and maybe what you call fanciful now will be seen as reasonable in the future. Looking at the history and philosophy of science can help shatter some deeply-held beliefs, and lead one to be more open-minded. — leo

It's not even clear to me what open or closed-minded would amount to in a context like this.

Childbirth causes severe pain for both the child and the woman. — khaled

What would be the epistemic basis for childbirth causing severe pain to babies?

I sympathize with your position, but you can't really discuss it with materialists because they disagree with your premises, but then you disagree with theirs so it doesn't lead anywhere. Still I think that people who believe in the primacy of consciousness over matter are usually less narrow-minded. But it's hard to show someone narrow-minded that they are narrow-minded, they have to be willing to let go of their convictions, or at least to tentatively entertain different points of view without reacting strongly right from the beginning against what they don't believe in.

Let me help you a little bit here. It could be that this material world we experience is a creation of our collective subconsciousness, and so that it depends on each and everyone of us, and that it is our will that shapes it, rather than unchanging laws that don't depend on us. If you don't like materialism, nothing forces you to believe in it, only some people try to force you (for various reasons that depend on them) but you don't have to let them take over your mind. — leo

I would hope that people aren't choosing philosophical stances based on whether they like them.

It’s just that my life was very lonely and shitty when I was an atheist. — Noah Te Stroete

There can definitely be benefits to church/religion-based social life, especially if you live in particular locations where that dominates the way that people interact socially.

At least you can learn, which is more than we can say for 90+ percent of the folks around here. ;-)

I am aware of this but you asked me PERSONALLY to peg every form of suffering on being born as if that is an argument for why it is unpeggable so I'm asking you PERSONALLY to explain to me how bombs work lest the bomber remain innocent. — khaled

No, I asked you to give the specific causal chain for one example. Because that's going to require that you rule out environmental factors, free will factors, etc.

without a subjective experience by someone, there would be no notion, knowledge, or experience of this. It would have no meaning. It wouldn’t matter. — Noah Te Stroete

No realist would disagree with that. Notions, knowledge, experiences, meaning, mattering are all things that people do. It's just that that's irrelevant to the issue (re the sun warming things). What you pointed out would be like saying, "Yes, perhaps the sun is warming things, but without a camera, there could be no photographs."

Do you mean force as in actual physical force? Are we talking pure physics here? Electromagnetic, Gravitaitonal, strong and weak nuclear? — khaled

Yes, physical forces. I'm a physicalist. (However, I'm not also a determinist. I buy that we have free will.)

Then is lying in court wrong if it directly causes someone to get jailed unjustly? — khaled

Lying in court doesn't cause anyone to be jailed. People deciding to forcibly jail someone, and then physically carrying that through does. Morally, in that scenario, by the way, I'm strongly against the idea of prosecuting anyone on witness testimony alone. I'd require physical evidence.

What is the force that necessarily resulted in the property Dead (of the guy that got blown up due to having a bomb implanted in him) obtaining versus the alive property? Can you peg it EXACTLY? Including every physical interaction inside the bomb? — khaled

Again, we can do this (it's weird that you'd not be aware of this--that you'd not know that we know very well how bombs work, we can do forensics very well, etc.), but again, if we assume that we can't, it in no way helps your argument.

Metaphysics and epistemology go hand in hand. Without epistemology, there would be no metaphysics. — Noah Te Stroete

So yes, my comment was about epistemology and it was saying something pro or con the content of your response?

That is why a consciousness is required to observe an inflation of a fluctuation in the quantum foam. Without an observer, there would be no Big Bang . . . — Noah Te Stroete

Someone has been reading Copenhagen Interpretation stuff (while probably misunderstanding its senses of "observer" and "measurement") while basically falling for it hook, line and sinker.

And? Do you want a badge? Just because you've thought about this for years, that doesn't mean you're right. You could be just as wrong, if not more so, ten years from now. — S

Exactly. Probably most folks posting here have thought about the stuff they're saying for years. It's going on 45+ years for me (based on when I first became interested in philosophy and started thinking about this stuff) . . . and I know there are folks around here who are older than I am.

Knowledge or perception of motion requires an observer. Without an observer, something there might just as well be nothing there. There’s nothing to discern the motion to say there is motion. — Noah Te Stroete

Could you explain what this has to do with the comment of mine it's a response to? Was my comment about epistemology, or somehow saying anything pro or con what you responded with? (I just noticed that I made a mistake re quotation--I'll go back and fix that.)