It appears that Wittgenstein's private language argument is about, all things considered, the subjective nature of consciousness and how that bears on language. — TheMadFool

My take is that it's not so much about the "nature or consciousness," but about the nature of language against the backdrop of consciousness. But ya, there is definitely something to be said about consciousness when analyzing Wittgenstein's comments over all. However, it seems to be more of an aside. It would be interesting though to study consciousness through Wittgenstein's eyes.

Wittgenstein then claims, for the private language user, the only possible means by which fae can know that fae is using a word/sign in that private language correctly is to consult oneself and that's problematic for the simple reason that whatever seems/is thought to be correct will be taken as correct. The notion of correct usage becomes meaningless as the verificatory process is, at the end of the day, circular: If you're unsure whether a word/sign is being used correctly by you, how can you ask yourself to check whether a word/sign is being used correctly by you? — TheMadFool

I think we agree here, except for the idea that it's circular. I'm not sure about that, you may be correct though, but it depends on how the argument is framed.

One of the criteria for a good inductive argument is truth of the premises, and to establish the truth of the premises used in my argument I use three criteria. First, are the testimonial accounts firsthand accounts? Second, how consistent are the accounts? They are just as consistent, if not more so, than what we might call normal testimonials (everyday testimonials). Third, can the testimonials be corroborated by doctors, nurses, family, friends, etc? In other words, the claimants are saying that while out-of-body they heard the conversations of those around them. Moreover, some describe conversations of people who are miles away, or in another room in the hospital. Mostly, NDErs describe the conversations of the nurses and doctors trying to resuscitate them. This often happens when there is no measurable brain activity and no heart beat. These conversations can be easily corroborated and have been corroborated, which gives us an objective way of validating the claims of NDErs.

An interesting study done by Dr. Michael Sabom which looked at the accuracy of NDErs claims while observing their own resuscitations during cardiac arrest. The testimony of NDErs was compared with a control group who did not claim to have an NDE. Sabom concluded that the NDErs descriptions of the resuscitations were much more accurate than the control group.

Another study by Dr. Penny Sartori also found that when comparing NDErs descriptions of their resuscitations, which were highly accurate, with a control group descriptions of their resuscitations, the control groups were very inaccurate and would often guess at what happened.

Moreover, how in the world can you possibly explain people who have been blind since birth having an OBE where they are able to see?

I can go on and on with testimonial evidence that is corroborated, but I won't.

The three ways of deciding the truth of the premises are met in my argument, along with numbers of testimonials (millions), and a variety of testimonials (different cultures, different circumstances, different age groups, etc). I don't see how anyone can write these testimonials off as anecdotal, hallucinations, the brain shutting down, or that they are illusions or delusions.

The full argument is given in my thread.

I wanted to give an updated version of the Greyson's NDE scale (http://www.newdualism.org/nde-papers/Greyson/Greyson-The%20Journal%20of%20Nervous%20and%20Mental%20Disease_1983-171-369-375.pdf), which helps to develop the internal consistency of the NDE reports. The original research was done in the early 80's by Greyson. Greyson's scale was updated and reassessed in 2020 (https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploads/sites/360/2020/11/Nov-2020-NDE-C-CC.pdf). This updated version continues to point to the internal consistency of the NDEs, which is important to the argument I make in this thread. It is also important to the discussion I had with @fdrake.

What is a more compelling evidence if one can call it that for consciousness after biological death. "Near death experiences" that are very similar versus those that are quite different? — TiredThinker

I can't think of a stronger inductive argument than I gave here (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1980/evidence-of-consciousness-surviving-the-body). Millions of firsthand corroborated accounts isn't weak evidence, by definition. This is the strongest evidence of life after death there is, period. It's consistent (as consistent as any testimonial evidence), and it comes from a variety of cultures, age groups, and happens in a variety of circumstances. The idea that it's some "folk interpretation" is ludicrous. You can't get much stronger testimonial evidence than the argument I presented. Also, to claim that the argument is absurd on its face is not to understand logic, and/or good testimonial evidence.

There is no good scientific argument against these experiences. I've listened to scientists and philosophers from around the world, and there's not one good counter-argument.

But if we share the same logic with these beings regardless of the experience we have, the question arises as to where logic comes from? — Mersi

If these beings live in this universe, or for that matter any universe, then they'll have experiences similar to ours, i.e., some kind of sensory experiences. I'm assuming of course that in your thought experiment that such beings have the ability to reason, i.e., minds or brains that are at least as advanced as our own. Given this assumption, then it follows that they have developed some kind of language, and assuming that they're not at the beginning of stages of linguistic development, it would follow that their language of logic would at the very least include the principle of non-contradiction. Any ability to reason would have to necessarily have this basic principle. I don't think we could even imagine a universe with other reasoning beings where this wouldn't be true. Reasoning presupposes some kind of rational thought, which by definition means the very basic principles of logic.

I'll just add this (which addresses other things that have been mentioned in this thread), that logic is parasitic, once a language of logic is formed, it extends what we already know as a result of sensory observation or linguistic training for example. So, formal logic is something that came later in human development.

One of the mistakes some people make in defining consciousness is that they want to define it by looking inward, i.e., our subjective experience. However, how can I say someone else is conscious based on this kind of subjective experience? After all, I'm only aware of my own consciousness, of my own inner experiences. It's important to bring in a Wittgensteinian idea to get clear on this mistake, i.e., that words get their meaning in public settings, not by pointing to an inner thing (beetle in a box problem). However, this doesn't mean that there isn't something inner going on, it just means that meanings don't attach to inner subjective objects. But concepts do reflect inner thoughts, and this is different from saying that concepts don't derive meaning from our inner world of thinking.

Wittgenstein doesn't deny our inner subjective life. One can think of it this way, when I use the word cup, meaning isn't derived from the object (the referent), although the object can be used to help us understand how to use the word in linguistic social settings. So, it's not as though the object has no role in our language, so we want to be careful to not eliminate our talk about the object. The tendency is for us to associate the meaning of a concept with the object, this is where we go wrong. It's a difficult habit to break, because it's so pervasive.

The point of the above remarks is to say that our inner life isn't some illusion, as some would suggest. There are those materialists who believe that if it's not an illusion (the illusion being the sense of self that seems to be non-material or metaphysical), then we can't explain it in terms of the material. Their point is that that sense of self can be explained in material terms, so they write off the metaphysical awareness by saying it's an illusion.

The first mistake is to call our inner awareness an illusion. Of course we can be mistaken in thinking it reflects some metaphysical existence (although I don't think it's a mistake based on the testimonial evidence of NDEs). Illusions only make sense against the backdrop of the real, of reality. So illusions give the appearance of something real. In other words, they cover reality with a blanket that hides the real. For example, the illusion of seeing a women cut in half by a magician. We can only say it's an illusion because we know that the women isn't being cut in half, although it appears so. So, we need to ask ourselves, what is the illusion of? Am I not having these inner experiences? Who is having the illusion, if not me? If I were to uncover reality would I find that someone else is having the real experience of self? Supposedly, if we were to uncover reality in this situation, we would find mechanistic explanations of consciousness or self. So, what the mechanistic or materialists want us to believe is that brain produces in us the illusion of consciousness or self. If someone is having an illusion, it presupposes a consciousness, i.e., it presupposes the real, so who is having the illusion? However, they might argue that it's not all an illusion, just the part where we disagree with them, the metaphysical part. I think part of the problem is the misuse of the word illusion. Just as the word hallucination is misused in describing NDEs. At the very least the argument that consciousness or the self is an illusion is spurious.

Another mistake is in defining consciousness as some thing in the brain, i.e., you're not going to be able to point to some process and say, "This is consciousness." Of course you can get around this by saying that certain brain processes produce consciousness. I can't make any sense out of material processes producing the feeling I get from seeing a beautiful sunset.

That said, I wouldn't use any of these arguments to argue against the materialist worldview. I'd use my inductive argument already given in this thread, it's much stronger.

Anyway, just some thoughts.

Love it or hate it, phenomena like this [e.g. organic molecular action] exhibit the heart of the power of the Darwinian idea. An impersonal, unreflective, robotic, mindless little scrap of molecular machinery is the ultimate basis of all the agency, and hence meaning, and hence consciousness, in the universe

I hate to use the "S" word, but in this case I'll make an exception, this is just stupid, just as much of Dennett's consciousness arguments are.

CP = Whatever begins to exist has a cause (for its existence).

Both Craig and Loke (along with many other supporters of the Kalam Argument) argue that it is irrational to deny this principle. The question I have is, (1) Can this causal principle be rationally denied? and (2) What would the benefits/costs be of rejecting this principle? — Ghost Light

I would deny that it's irrational to reject this principle, which is to say that it's not logically impossible to have an infinite number of overlapping contingent causal explanations in both directions of time. It doesn't necessarily follow that there has to be a first cause. It may be reasonable to assume a metaphysical first cause, but it's certainly not irrational to to deny a first cause. Moreover, as has already been pointed out, even if you accept a first cause, this doesn't necessarily get you to God. One could argue that the first cause is something other than a God. We just don't know what that first cause could be, or who it could be.

For my money, I would bet on an intelligence behind the universe, but that doesn't mean it's God. Moreover, if there is a God, I don't see that that God is defined in terms of some religious ideology or dogma.

Ya, that's about right. lol

More and more is the study of NDEs leading me to the conclusion that consciousness is fundamental. Some of the early theories of consciousness that are being developed may have problems, but I think they are headed in the right direction. The following documentary is an interesting look at where some of these ideas are going. If I was young again I would pursue these ideas and studies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYjnZCy_ZK4

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv25EcaUQBo

You're giving me an opinion. Moreover, I don't think that most people who study consciousness believe (even if they are materialists) that the brain is a temporary aspect of consciousness. Most seem to believe that consciousness resides in the brain, i.e., that it can be explained through biological processes.

Your making statements without giving an argument in support of your conclusions or beliefs. How do you arrive at these beliefs? What's your supporting data?

Ya, obviously it's not sound waves (I went brain dead.), we'd be waiting much longer for these signals to reach us if it wasn't electromagnetic radiation. However, my point is that the wave doesn't originate in the radio, the radio picks it up via the receiver.

Obviously the waves are not conscious, who would think that? It's just an analogy to show that the brain is in some way like the radio. Like most analogies it has its limitations in terms of likeness.

Well, some believe that consciousness is a biological function of the brain, so in this case consciousness is in the body, so to speak. I've never heard anyone refer to our bodies being in consciousness. I believe the source of consciousness is outside the body. The brain is like a receiver that transmits consciousness through the body. Like a radio picking up sound waves and transmitting the sounds through its components.

Well, my argument is that when the body dies, consciousness goes on, so obviously the body doesn't survive consciousness. Your wording is a bit confusing.

Then I have no idea what you're talking about.

You're right, the body doesn't survive consciousness. I think you have your words switched around. Don't you mean to say, consciousness doesn't survive the body? If that's your argument you've definitely convinced me. Of course you're in good company, because most of the arguments I get are of the same quality, or not much better.

Wow, you people are having so much fun, and you've made a lot of headway.

Excellent post on the verifiable and falsifiable.

You're welcome Banno.

I have recently been presented with Wittgenstein's statement-quote, "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world". I found it quite shallow. — Alkis Piskas

Given what you've written, I'm going to assume that you haven't really studied the Tractatus. To understand what Wittgenstein is saying in this quote, you have to understand what is going on in philosophy vis a vis Bertrand Russell and Gottlob Frege ("I will only mention that I am indebted to Frege's great works and to the writings of my friend Mr. Bertrand Russell for much of the stimulation of my thoughts (p.3 Preface to the Tractatus)); and you have to understand Wittgenstein's goal in the Tractatus. I'm not going to get into the philosophy of Russell and Frege, but I will say a few words about the Tractatus, and what Wittgenstein was trying to accomplish.

In the Preface to the Tractatus Wittgenstein clearly states that his goal is to draw a limit to the expression of thoughts, and since language is used to express our thoughts, it will only be in language that the limit can be drawn (p. 3 Preface). For Wittgenstein there is a definite logic to language. In fact, Wittgenstein's sees a one-to-one correspondence between propositions and facts in the world. Propositions describe the world, they are pictures of the world. So, the three main issues are logic, language, and the world, and Wittgenstein's analysis is an a priori analysis of these three ideas and how they connect.

So, Wittgenstein is caught up in the continuing problem of how thought and language connect to the world, i.e., how is it that we are able to say things about the world? His a priori investigation includes the idea that logic will reveal the structure of language and the structure of the world. There must be a logical connection that will reveal itself through analysis. His work extends "...from the foundations of logic to the nature of the world (Nb, p. 79)."

If as Wittgenstein believed, there is a one-to-one correspondence between what can be said about the world, and the facts of the world, then everything that can be said about the world, would give us a complete picture of the world. We would have completely described the world, given we have everything that can be said. So, if this is true, then the limits of our language, i.e., everything that can be stated about the world, would completely describe the limits of our (or my) world.

This hopefully, will give you a different way of thinking about the quote from Tractatus 5.62.

Also, your own understanding of the world is limited by your grasp of the propositions that really do line up with facts in the world. This, I believe, is why Wittgenstein believed it important to understand the logic of our language, which continued into his later philosophy. Although, his later philosophy is a much more expanded view of the logic of language.

Maybe this will help you to understand the quote a little better, and get you to read more about the history behind the Tractatus.

I definitely would rely on something like this to support the conclusion that consciousness is not a brain function, there are better arguments.

I came across something that at least suggests that consciousness is probably more than just a brain function. A man in France who lives a relatively normal healthy life with damage to 90% of his brain. Obviously this isn't conclusive evidence, but it's getting people to think that consciousness isn't just a brain function. I already believe there is strong evidence to support the conclusion that consciousness isn't just a biological function based on NDEs.

https://www.sciencealert.com/a-man-who-lives-without-90-of-his-brain-is-challenging-our-understanding-of-consciousness

I agree, although I'm not religious myself, but I do believe that we survive death based on other reasons.

Here's the definition of "cult" I think is the most applicable to this discussion - "A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister."

Clearly, the Catholic Church does not meet that definition. — T Clark

I think this is generally correct, the way the word is usually used is to refer to religious ideas that are not in the mainstream of a society or culture. However, people tend to use it to disparage any religious belief they disagree with, which doesn't seem to be in keeping with how the word should be used. One could argue about what is mainstream, so I suppose there is room to maneuver.

I was looking over this thread from a few years ago, now I drive a 2018 Toyota Camry, go figure. :smile:

There's also attempted Armacide. It's immoral from the intention to harm, but lacks the objective existence of it. Would this still qualify as a property and maintain an objective sense? — Cheshire

There's always going to be instances where it's difficult to see the harm. That said, we know the effects of certain actions, because we have seen the effects before. So, the intent to do harm, as in the example given, maintains it's objective component because we know what the outcome would be, viz., the blood, the screams, etc.

It's more difficult to see the harm of certain thoughts, especially if they're not connected with actions. It may take someone with an understanding of psychology, for example, to point out the objective harm of certain thoughts (thoughts that aren't connected to a particular overt act) because we lack the knowledge. Note that even here the psychologist may be familiar with the effects of these thoughts by observation. So, even in a case like this, there's going to be an objective component.

I firmly believe things are right or wrong apart from who does them. But, I can't account for how this could be; — Cheshire

If you're asking if there is something objective about an immoral act, I would say there is, viz., the harm done. So, for example, if I cut someone's arm off for no good reason, then I've committed an immoral act by definition. One can objectively see the harm done, viz., the arm severed from the body, the blood, the screams of pain, the pain of onlookers, etc., these objective components can be seen by any rational onlooker. The objective harm done in this example is clearly definable, and in most immoral acts the objective harm done is clearly observable. There are cases where the harm done is not so clear, and in those cases it may take more study to understand if harm has really be done, but it's clear to me that harm is a property of all immoral acts. This is not to say that whenever a harm is done that it's necessarily immoral, but only to say that all immoral acts have this property.

This only answers part of your question, but it's an important part.

This is one of the best NDEs I've heard.

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

Why not just deny the possibility of eternal oblivion by denying the existence of a continuous self, even within a single lifetime? That way you circumvent the need for evidence of reincarnation, and avoid all of the scepticism that the begging of evidence entails. — sime

Well, I go where the testimonial evidence leads even if I don't understand how or why certain experiences happen. There is much about these experiences that are mysterious, but if these are veridical experiences, which I believe they are, then if would obviously follow that we lack understanding of the mechanisms involved. It would be like trying to figure out a civilization that is thousands or millions of years ahead of us, much of what would be described would seem contradictory or impossible.

2. The beliefs that have no definite rational or inductive knowledge or ground. The beliefs that come from a private psychological state, which does not require evidence, justification or proof. Religious beliefs are in this category, and only in this case, the concept of faith should be applied to the beliefs. — Corvus

I'm just responding to some of what's in this quote, and expanding on it a bit.

What you're describing here is an opinion or an intuition, which by definition has no justification, or very little justification. I think it's true that psychology plays a large role in what everyone believes, i.e., everyone is affected by their experiences, culture, friends, etc, but the goal, at least for many, is to have a justification for what they believe beyond the subjective. Beliefs that are justified, are superior to beliefs that aren't justified. Moreover, justification comes from different sources, logic, sensory experience, testimony, linguistic justification, etc., so we shouldn't think that logic is the only way a belief should be justified.

For me, I find little evidence to support any religious worldview, which isn't to say that there aren't truths within these worldviews, but to say that these worldviews as a whole have serious flaws. For example, beliefs that damn half the world to hell, or beliefs in the resurrection, or beliefs that we should kill infidels, etc.

On the other hand, I find that the materialistic worldview to be about as close-minded and biased as you can get. In many cases they are unable to see beyond their myopic perspective, but this isn't just true of atheists, it's true of many people who have a passionate worldview.

As some of you know, my study of NDEs is centered around what we can know, so it's an epistemological study of the testimonial evidence.

Also, my conclusions are not coming from a religious point of view, especially since I'm not religious. I also don't believe that NDEs necessarily support the idea of a God, so I'm agnostic about that. It is true, however, that people who have had an NDE believe they've encountered religious beings (God, angels, Jesus, Muhammed, etc.), but I have found when comparing NDEs from around the world that one's culture affects how one interprets the beings they encounter. So, just as our everyday experiences are sifted through our worldview, the same is true of NDEs. I have found very little evidence that supports the idea of a particular religious God, which is not to say there isn't some supreme being, but only to point out that if there is, it's probably very different from how religion defines God. There does seem to be some source that we emanate from, i.e., some base consciousness.

In this thread my argument has centered around the conclusion that consciousness survives the death of the body. This means that consciousness is not a biological function, no more than a radio or TV is the source of the programs that you hear or see. The brain, for lack of a better analogy, acts as a receiver, and when the receiver is destroyed in some way, it no longer picks up the signal. The source of the signal is still there, but the receiver (the brain) is no longer able to receive that signal.

There are other conclusions that can be inferred based on the evidence, but I've tried to limit the scope of my conclusion to make it as simple as possible. Some of the other conclusion that can be inferred is that our loved ones have survived the death of the body (encountered deceased loved ones happens quite often in an NDE), that our home is not here, i.e., we originate from another place (metaphysical place), that there are specific reasons why we choose to experience this life, and that we choose many of our experiences prior to coming here. There is also the idea that we have experienced many lifetimes, but I don't like using the term reincarnation because of the religious baggage that comes with it. What seems clear to me is that if we do live out other lives there has to be a source that maintains the continuity of the self, otherwise it's difficult to make sense of the idea. I do believe there is a point from which the self operates, and from that point it can place itself into other realities. In a way, we do this already with games like WoW or Final Fantasy XIV, but in a very limited sense. I can play multiple characters in the game, but each character is still me, i.e., I can maintain the continuity of the self, even though I can act through different avatars.

For those of you interested in the study of NDEs, and related subjects, I've been invited to do a podcast next year. After the podcast is complete it will be uploaded to Youtube, and I will provide a link. I will be providing more information in the coming months. I don't have a firm date yet, but I've been assured an upcoming spot.

Growing Evidence of Life After Death

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0AvstZQl1o

Nothing fancy, just recording on my camera and editing with the software that comes with Windows 10.

There's obviously a lot more that can be said, but I'm calling it a day. I'm actually working on Youtube videos on this very subject, viz., NDEs. Whether I post to Youtube I'm not sure, but I am developing a script. In fact, I have the script for about three videos so far, and they're each about 15 minutes long, give or take. Once I develop a script for about four videos I'll start posting them, maybe.

The title for my video's will be - Near-Death Experiences and the Testimonial Evidence. There is a possibility that I could change the title, but that's what I have so far.

That's a very big "IF" there. You don't really expect these people to have an "open mind"? Obviously, they're basing their arguments on unexamined assumptions and unfounded hypotheses for the sake of being contradictory because they've got nothing better to do. — Apollodorus

There are some people here who have an open mind, and there are some people here who really do care about truth, even if they disagree. So, I wouldn't necessarily agree that people are just arguing because they have nothing better to do, or because their communists. I don't quite go as far as you. But one thing is for certain, convincing people, whatever side of the argument you're on, is a very difficult thing. As Banno would say, cheers.

The point is that the report of an embodied person does not stand as evidence of a disembodied person. — Fooloso4

I see, so the corroborated testimonial evidence while my heart is stopped and I'm no longer breathing, i.e., the testimony that I'm observing my operation from a point outside my body is not evidence. The fact, again corroborated, that I'm describing conversations and the equipment used in the operation is not evidence of being disembodied? Or, describing a conversation of relatives in a waiting room while the operation is being performed in another part of the hospital is not evidence of being disembodied? I'll refrain from saying what I really want to say. The point is that many people who are materialists, or who just deny that such events can happen refuse to open their eyes to the evidence. Firsthand testimonial evidence, is evidence, and whether its good evidence depends on factors I've already given in this thread and in my thread https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1980/evidence-of-consciousness-surviving-the-body/p1 . So, I wouldn't wouldn't put much stock in these kinds of statements.

It is not simply a matter of explaining how it is possible but of giving a coherent account of whatever it is that inhabits or is tied to a body but is somehow separate from it. Whatever it is that perceives and feels and yet is not a body. — Fooloso4

This just doesn't follow, i.e., because I can't explain how it is that people are able to have an OBE, then it follows that they aren't having an NDE. Of course I can't give a coherent account of how it's possible. Nobody understands the mechanism whereby these OBEs happen. Moreover, I haven't tried to give a coherent account other than speculation. This however, doesn't negate the fact that it's happening, i.e., people are experiencing corroborated OBEs. When people first conducted the 2 slit light experiment no one knew what was going on, and no one could give a coherent explanation of what was happening, but did that negate the evidence that something weird was happening? No. Did it negate further research? No.

If you have an open-mind and are not completely shut off from reason, then you have to say, at the very least that there is something to these NDEs. Here is an example of an NDE that can't be explained away with the arguments that disembodied existence just isn't possible, or that it's incoherent.

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

I'm not saying that mind or consciousness is necessarily biological, I'm saying that continuity must be preserved, biological or otherwise. It's the "otherwise" that we disagree about.

:grin:

Factual possibility is the only modal distinction that makes a difference regarding facts of the matter. — 180 Proof

Well, that depends, because if someone claims that something is not factually possible, as you seem to be claiming, then are you saying that it's logically impossible (viz., contradictory). If it's logically impossible like a four-sided triangle, then conceptually you can't even imagine it. Again, this seems to be what you're implying. But surely I can imagine things like dancing cartoons, which have no bodies other than what we imagine. Moreover, I'm able to conceptualize these kinds of things. We can even conceptualize dancing ghosts, and we know what we mean by dancing ghosts. You seem to want to say that if my dead father appeared before me, as a ghostly figure, yet recognizable, and he danced, that would have no conceptual meaning. Most people would understand what that meant whether they agreed that people really see dead people or not.

On the other hand, if we are referring to square circles, there is no conceptual framework that includes such a thing, unless you make it up. Under our current ideas of geometry there just isn't such a thing as a square circle, it's contradictory. But this isn't the same conceptual problem as disembodied dancing, because I can clearly imagine such a thing; and I can talk about it with some understanding of what it would mean.

As far as I or anyone is rigorously aware "NDEs" & "OBEs" are, at most, uncorroborated anecdotes. Idle speculation, like idle doubt, maybe passes the time like daydreaming but that's context-free diversion which neither presupposes commitments nor entails prospects. — 180 Proof

This just shows that you have really studied the issue. The testimonial evidence is not all just anecdotal. It has been corroborated in many many cases. There are objective means to verify what people claim to have seen while out of their bodies. Like interviewing doctors, nurses, hospice workers, etc, who can verify some of what these NDEers claim. The testimonial evidence for NDEs is extremely strong, and only those committed to a particular worldview seem to reject the evidence.

I love how people try to belittle the beliefs of other with whom they disagree. Using words like "idle speculation," or "daydreaming." Now to be honest, I've done my fair share of saying things to others that may belittle or otherwise dismiss them too, so I'm not complaining. I'm only pointing out that this is mostly done to make it look like your beliefs are somehow superior, and maybe in some cases they are. However, the only thing that counts are good arguments, not using words that dismiss others.