But we don't have much choice about suppressing our memory when we fall asleep. It just happens as we fall asleep. Maybe it is similar with the suppression of memory during incarnation - it just happens and there is not much we can do about it. Maybe one day we will be able to control it. Maybe one day we used to be able to control it but we lost that ability due to a spiritual fall, as the esoteric sources say. — litewave

Well, the dream analogy isn't perfect, but I do believe that when we choose to come here, part of making that decision is the suppression of who we really are, what we know, and where we're from. We make an agreement when we come here, for e.g., we agree to come here for a certain period of time, which is why people who have NDEs are told it's not their time, you have to go back.

Ya Brian I see total unity of mind or consciousness, which is why I think the unifying principle behind everything is consciousness.

I think the suppression of memory allows us to fully engage in this world.

I would just be guessing, but it does seem to be the case that whatever we experience contributes to learning on some level. We can see this when people have life reviews during their NDE. They are never judged, but only asked what did you learn? What's most important about living life is love. Maybe some of these experiences take us so far away from love that we are only able to see its importance the further we get from the ideal.

What I find interesting is that many people who have an NDE recover their memories during their experience. They'll say to themselves, "How could I have forgotten that," or "Oh, now I remember." If you think about different levels of consciousness, say dreaming for example, this is exactly what happens as we descend into the lower levels of awareness, we forget the higher levels. It's not until we wake up (so to speak) that the memories return.

Maybe the question should be reversed, why would you want to undergo the experience of being murdered, because based on the testimonial evidence you probably know before coming here some of what you'll experience, or even all that you'll experience. However, probably what you don't know is how you will respond to the experiences as a human. Another way to think about it is this: Think of what we put ourselves through to achieve an important goal, people will put themselves through some of the most grueling of experiences, and even risk extreme pain to achieve a goal. So it wouldn't surprise me that some people would choose to have these experiences; and remember, not everyone chooses to be murdered or tortured, some people choose to live out relatively normal kinds of lives.

First, nothing can ultimately harm us, but obviously that doesn't help as we're experiencing some very difficult experiences. Second, it's what we learn from these experiences that seems to be important. Third, you agree to this, so it's nothing that's forced upon you, which is why I don't believe there is really a problem of evil. Moreover, some of us think that it's so important, viz., coming here, that we come back and do it again. I don't have all the answers, and no one does, but coming here does have important ramifications on who we are; and it's not only important for us, but also those people who are around us.

One point is probably to allow you to fully partake of this reality without the hindrance of knowing what this reality is. It would affect your ability to fully immerse yourself in this reality.

One of my pet peeves is when people join a discussion without reading the thread. At least skim through the material.

Good point about defending arguments.

Ya, I'm sure there are many traditional beliefs that go against much of this. What I've tried to do is let the testimonial evidence speak for itself, even if the conclusions meant going against many traditional beliefs, whether western or eastern traditional beliefs. Much or many of the conclusions are downright bazaar in many cases, although it seems that many of our metaphysical beliefs may have sprung from some of these NDEs, for example, reincarnation.

What follows is something I've talked about before, but it gets lost in the pages, so it bears repeating. It also represents my conclusions from studying many thousands of NDEs. Of all the things I've written, this is most important to me, it goes to heart of who we are, and where we come from.

Part of this is a response to Aleksander's comment just above, but it goes beyond his question. Could it be a dream, Aleksander asks?

It's just another level of consciousness (awareness) that we choose to experience for a variety of reasons. You won't know, at least many of us, what those reasons are until you return to the source of your being, at least not fully. Some of us do feel we know our purpose. For example, some people have always known that they wanted to be a doctor, teacher, scientist, etc, but most of us who live average lives don't have a sense that we should be pursuing x, y, or z. So for the average person their sense of purpose tends to be muddled in a myriad of small seemingly insignificant acts or experiences. Remember that everything you do has significance, even the smallest of things, yes, even your responses in this forum has significance. Any interaction with another person has significance, and while it's true that we are all part of an ultimate consciousness (for lack of a better description), at the core of this consciousness is love; and to the degree that you're able to express this love, you can be sure that that is definitely part of what you should be doing, part of your purpose. And no matter what we believe, most of us would agree that being kind to others, even to the most vulnerable (animals for e.g.) is a good thing, even to those we loathe.

What is the source? it's ourselves, we are the source, we along with many others are the co-creators of this reality, and all realities. There is no God in the religious sense, that's just man's way of trying to describe what he feels at a deeper level. The closest thing to a God is this source, but we are part of the source, we are one with it, all of us. In a very real sense, we are god. Every thing that exists is ultimately connected to the source. It's our home, where we come from, where we get our life. Moreover, we are eternal beings, who live out many different lives in different realities. Sometimes we choose to come back to this reality, which is probably where the idea of reincarnation came from.

As I said above we make the choice to come here, we actually agree to certain things before we come here. Part of this agreement includes the suppression of many of our memories, choice of parents, when we die, who are children might be, and the choice of some or even all of what we experience.

I'll end here for now.

This is one example of what life is about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89VlnvGnP2s

:nerd:

Sounds good to me. How much time will be given to respond?

This is a study of memories and NDEs.

https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploads/sites/360/2017/03/NDE-85-MCQ-ConCog.pdf

The following video is interesting, especially the first few minutes. Start at 3:27.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RGizqsLumo

The problem you're going to run into is that there are many different uses of the word irrefutable, depending on one's epistemology. For example, for me, one use of what's irrefutable is what's foundational, i.e., what cannot be coherently or reasonably doubted generally.

Another use of the term might be a proof, i.e., if the premises are true, then the conclusion is irrefutable. Even inductive arguments might be referred to as irrefutable depending on the strength of the premises. But you're going to get people who hold to the idea that their version of the word irrefutable is the only use that counts.

Good luck trying to get unanimity - I've never seen it happen in this forum or any other forum, but don't let that deter you.

Unfortunately we can vote ourselves right into tyranny, whether from the left or right.

I understand what that's like, unfortunately there are leftists that don't want to hear from anyone who disagrees with them; and the irony is that their the one's acting like fascists.

There's crazy stuff going on on both sides. Until we dispense with the liberal vs conservative, or democrat vs republican you won't be able, in a lot of cases, be able to distinguish what's fact and what''s not fact. Politicians in many cases are only interested in holding onto power, and they create a narrative that people buy into, that narrative in many cases has little to do with facts. It's simple, the ends justify the means for many politicians.

I agree with much of what you said. This is why it's so important to be able to express your beliefs openly, and preferably in debate with others who disagree. This is also why it's not good what many on the left are doing, viz., shutting down speech they disagree with on many campuses. I'm making a distinction between liberals and democrats and leftists, because many democrats also agree with not shutting down speech.

Sometimes we get people in office that we don't like, and that we disagree with vehemently, but if you start limiting (as you say) who can say what, then you open yourself up to the same kind of censorship. I don't want to see a socialist get into office, but we still need to keep the communication lines open. It's paramount to keep yourself informed, and not just from a one-sided perspective.

I just saw a video on youtube on the why of logic as in how one justifies one's belief in the system of logic as the correct method of thinking.

1. It claims that to question logic is, itself, to be logical and therefore all criticisms of logic already subsume the principles of logic - we are looking for reasons to justify our doubts about logical authority.

2. Others claim that to justify logic is to, again, assume logic's authority. This, they allege, is a circularity and therefore logic has no justification.

So, it appears that we can neither justify nor critique logic. Both are circular.

I feel like Buridan's ass right now.

Please help...Thank you — TheMadFool

Logic is a language-game, and like any language-game it starts with rules. I presume that you're asking what justifies the rules, and the answer is that the rules don't need to be justified, no more than the rules of chess need to be justified. The question is mostly senseless. It's very similar to asking what justifies a definition - nothing justifies a definition, it's just how we play the game, or how we use the word. Why do people think that everything needs a justification? There are some things that are just foundational or basic to the way we do things, or the way we act.

You can think of it this way: Suppose we're looking at the foundational supports of a building, and you ask, "What justifies placing that foundational support there?" - the reply might be that that particular beam is needed to support the extra weight in that corner of the building. However, to ask what supports bedrock, is to not understand that justification ends at some point, i.e., nothing supports bedrock, it's foundational to all that rests on it. You can think of the rules of logic in the same way you think of resting a building on bedrock. It holds up all that follows, it doesn't need a justification.

Also because something is circular doesn't mean that something is necessarily wrong or incorrect. The fallacy of circularity pertains to arguments - not definitions, or rules, or anything outside what the definition pertains to within the framework of arguments.

I agree he rejected the picture theory as presented in the Tractatus. However, as I've mentioned, that doesn't mean that propositions can't or don't represent a kind of picture in some uses. A statement can be used as a picture, that's one of the uses of statements. There are an array of uses, of which picturing is only one among many uses. Whereas in the Tractatus Wittgenstein was more dogmatic about how statements pictured things in the world.

Yes, picturing is something we do with statements. So I agree with your point. I'm not sure where you think Wittgenstein went wrong in the PI. Picturing is clearly a use in the PI.

Sorry, but I don't see Wittgenstein putting forth a picture theory in the PI. That said, of course there are places where he talks about how statements put forth a picture, but that's a far cry from saying that Wittgenstein has continued the picture theory in the PI. If anything he criticizes it.

You quoted the Tractatus. Where does the PI put forth that view?

Let me just preface my remarks with this. First, I'm an independent, I don't like the two party system in the U.S., it's too tribal. Second, people tend to be blinded by their political world view, it's akin to religion. Third, Trump does say stupid things, there's no doubt about. He's childlike in many of his responses. Fourth, the left lost much of their power in the last election, including the control of many states. That said, it doesn't mean they won't get it back, but much of what you're hearing from the left are the irrational screams of that loss, not all of it, but much of it. Their narrative is created to drive a particular storyline, and much of that storyline isn't based on fact at all, but is driven by the story. This is true of both sides, but is particularly true of the left, which has gone bonkers. I'm not saying that the right doesn't have problems, obviously they do, and many on the right will defend Trump no matter what he does or says, but that's also true of the left.

Trying to look at this objectively I see more irrationality coming from the left then I do the right; and that irrationality is driven by hate. Whenever you hate someone you're going to see everything they do through those eyes, everything will be filtered through that prism. It's dangerous.

What I find difficult here is that the picture theory continued into PI, yet I would have it replaced by use. I wonder what Sam26 has to say about this. — Banno

Where do you see that Wittgenstein continued with the picture theory in the PI? If anything he rejects it, although when considering use, and the multiplicity of uses, some statements are pictures in a manner of speaking. It's just that the picture theory doesn't explain all statements. Just as some definitions of the word game don't explain all uses of the word game. Use is primary in the PI, but even use has it's limits.

So logic does not tell us what is true? — Banno

No, logic doesn't tell us what's true. Logic is a tool to help us draw proper conclusions, but it certainly doesn't guarantee truth. If certain propositions are true (for e.g. a proof), then it follows that the conclusion is true, but that is contingent on whether the premises are true. So in that sense it doesn't tell us what's true. Logic is a tool of correct reason.

Epistemology is all about certainty, not “Truth”. Real Truth is inaccessible to us because of physical and mental filters between us and the real world, namely biological, cultural, and psychological.

There are only two ways of knowing, empirical probability and logical necessity. — Kaiser Basileus

Epistemology is about knowledge, and knowledge deals with beliefs, justification, and truth. If I say that I know algebra, that statement is either true or false.

There are at least two ways I can talk about certainty. One way is a subjective portrayal of my inner feelings about what I claim to know, and it can be expressed by emphasis. Another way that the word certainty is used, is as a synonym for knowing or knowledge. For example, I am certain that I saw Tom shoot Mary, or I am certain that Abraham Lincoln was the 16th president, etc.

There are many uses of the word know that go beyond your limited description of knowledge. I can know by sensory experience, I can know based on testimony, I can know based argument, inference, or proof, and I can know based on linguistic training, to name a few. The use of the word know is much more expansive than people seem to think.

In the most shorthand form we find. The issue is we tend to think our shorthand, our therefore merely convenient form of description, is itself what reality is. — raza

I understand that our language is just a description of reality, and thus how we talk about reality. It doesn't follow from that that our description is reality.

"I am sitting at my pc" is not what is occurring. It describes a picture that even we ourselves do not see in the moment of that particular experience.

So what is it, then, that is ACTUALLY occurring in that moment?

You do not see a you at the pc, correct? — raza

You seem to want to talk about simple everyday explanations in a metaphysical way. If we spoke to each other in the way you seem to want too, we would never get anywhere with our talk. Obviously we can analyze our experiences in ways that we don't normally do in our everyday speech. If what you're saying is the case, then we wouldn't know what we were talking about when we told each other, "I am presently sitting at my computer typing." The fact is that we do understand. If you talked with people in your everyday life like you're talking right now, they would think you were crazy. Unless of course there was a specific context that dictated a more accurate picture (however, I don't think the way your talking is more accurate) of what it means to experience these kinds of experiences. In my case I'm talking about everyday speech acts.

Raza, I can't make any sense out of your contention. It might make for interesting philosophical discussions, and that's a stretch, but other than that, I don't find some of it plausible.

One criterion for strong testimonial evidence is corroboration. If multiple people testify to witnessing an event then the claims corroborated by the testimony have more weight as evidence. (likewise, if people testify to not-witnessing something when they allegedly should have, it weakens the testimonial evidence)

Another criterion is the credibility of witnesses. If a witness has a clear bias (such as a conflict of interest or having been inebriated at the time) then this can weaken the inductive strength of testimony as evidence.

Falsifiability is a great attribute for improving the strength of testimonial evidence. The more you try and fail to falsify a claim, the stronger that claim is shown to be. — VagabondSpectre

All of these have been talked about, and you're right, corroboration, credibility, and falsification are all part of a good argument. My argument was presented at the beginning of this thread, several posts down from the first post.

I have good evidence that during the experience conveniently described as “I am sitting at my pc” this is not in fact what is occurring.

What is occurring is the experience of sitting at “my” pc.

I (me) can only logically and fundamentally be the entire experience (the room, the chair, sounds, sensations of all kinds). “I am sitting at my pc” is merely a description for sake of convenient transmission during an experience of a conversation about the previous “pc” event. — raza

I would submit that your just playing word games. "I am sitting at my pc," is the experience of sitting at my pc, what else could it mean? What else would we be talking about when we say, "I am sitting at my pc," besides the experience itself? When you talk about it, you're merely describing the event, or describing the experience. We use the words to convey the experience to others.

A shade off topic but, actually, there is evidence. Our microbiome, for example, extends beyond our bodies; we carry a cloud of our microbes around us at all times, as well as an EM field and a heat field. There is also a mental field interpreted as personal space. There are also the fields of our senses that extend a long way from our bodies.

These things are not generally interpreted as as "I", not only because we can't see them, but we can't feel them - they don't trigger our nervous systems. Thus, we are not evolved to perceive all that we are, just the aspects that played the greatest role in survival. — Greta

I see your point, but how would that explain the experiences people are having in an NDE? Let me put it this way, there is no evidence that the extension of our body in the ways you describe, are extensions that would give rise to these kinds of experiences. And I agree that we don't perceive all that we are, in fact, I think NDEs give evidence that we are more than this body.

The argument from evil is an inference that a 3- omni God cannot exist, because this is inconsistent with the presence of so much evil in the world. Theists reject this with the "free-will" defense, which suggests that God "had" to allow evil because it is a necessary consequence of free will. My argument defeats this defense based in Christian doctrine:

1. Logical contradictions do not exist.
2. If x exists then x is not a logical contradiction (converse of 1)
3. Omnipotence entails the ability to directly create any contingent entity whose existence is logically possible.
4. There exist contingent free-willed souls in heaven who do not sin (e.g. the departed souls of faithful Christians). (Christian doctrine).
5. Therefore God's omnipotence entails the ability to directly create free-willed beings that do not sin.
6. Therefore God could have created a world of free-willed beings who do not sin
7. In this world, evil befalls the innocent due to the sinful acts of free-willed individuals
8. God created this world instead of a world of free willed beings that do not sin.
9. Therefore God chose a world with needless pain and suffering.
10. Therefore God is not omnibenevolent. — Relativist

I'm going to say a few things to add to the argument.

I believe the argument has merit. First, it does seem that God (as most Christians define God), does have the ability to create beings with a free will, and who never sin. For example, supposedly God created the Angels in heaven with free will and yet some rebelled and some didn't. Given that, it would seem that an omnipotent being could have only created beings that have a free will, and only use that free will in benevolent ways. So God could have only created the Angels that he knew wouldn't choose to use their free will in evil ways. Presumably this is true of all persons.

Second, if we have free will here on Earth, and we then go to heaven where we no longer have free will, would it still be the same person? Also taking away freedom of will would seem to go against God's desire to have beings that freely love him. Does God want robots, what kind of love can someone give who doesn't have the ability to choose otherwise?

Christians seem to think (many Christians) that having a free will solves the problem of evil, but I think it adds to the problem. For example, God being omniscient would have to know who would choose him and who would reject him. Why even create beings that you know will choose to reject you? If you choose to create beings that you know will end up in eternal damnation what does that say about you? If I create a robot with a free will, knowing that robot would murder 1000 people, that makes me responsible. The free will argument that many Christians propose makes God responsible for evil.

With regards to your "position", I'd rather say that "I don't know that my experience of sitting at my PC writing is not an illusion, but I know that I am currently having an experience of some kind." That's a foundational belief for me. — numberjohnny5

I would say that normally we do know that it's not an illusion. However, I maybe using the word know differently from you. What I mean, is that we are reasonably sure that such-and-such is the case. I don't have to know with absolute certainty to make the claim that "I know..." Furthermore, if you don't know that you're sitting at your computer doing X, viz., having that experience, then how would you know that you're having any experience? We can be reasonably sure that our sensory experiences generally don't mislead us, if this wasn't the case, then we couldn't be sure of much.

I am doubting the claim "I am sitting at my pc" due to it's unreality. It is a belief rather than real, I contend (although, in reality, there is merely the experience of a "contend" thought).

The reality is that there is an experience of "sitting at my pc". — raza

My point is that to doubt something means that one has good reasons to doubt, or has good evidence to doubt. In my epistemology one doesn't just need a justification for knowledge, but one needs a good justification for doubt, the two go hand-in-hand. So I'm not sure what it would mean to doubt that you're sitting at your pc. I'm sure that you might be able to construct a scenario in which it would make sense to doubt it, but what would it mean to doubt it in normal everyday circumstances. Do we normally doubt such things?

Sure. At the present moment, (I know that) I'm sitting at my PC writing this sentence. — numberjohnny5

My position is that you "don't know that you're sitting at the PC writing," i.e., that proposition is a foundational belief. What I mean by foundational is that the belief doesn't fall within any epistemological construct, i.e., it doesn't make sense that it would need justification, and it doesn't make sense that it can or could be doubted (at least generally). There are many foundational beliefs that fall into this category, for example, "This is my hand," or "I live on the Earth;" I would call these beliefs bedrock, basic, or foundational. One can identify these foundational beliefs when we consider whether or not it makes sense in particular contexts to doubt the statement/proposition, which is why it's not a matter of knowing that you're sitting at the PC. It's simply a very basic belief that falls outside any epistemic consideration, which is to say that it doesn't need to be justified. Justification comes to an end with these kinds of statements.

People tend to ignore facts, they're more interested in buying into a particular narrative (right or left); and they see everything through their narrative. We're in a culture where we belong to our own little tribe, and damn all others who don't think like my tribe.

Sorry, but I just don't have the time to respond, I've been very busy.

I guess my point is - the question in the joke is nonsense, and the answer is nonsense. It would take quite some theorising to put together a group of concepts to suggest that there is a meaningful answer, and the answer is going to be wholly determined by the premises that you bring to it. We can certainly ask if God is timeless or eternal, but first we have to have determine what God is, what timelessness and eternity are, and so forth. And by the time we've done this we are so far away from wherever we started that the entire question and answer are just abstract, fictional constructs that don't tell us anything except how creative we can be.

It reminds me of the 'orange juice seat'. There is a linguistics discussion in which it is questioned whether the phrase 'orange juice seat' can be meaningful. Given context, it can: if there are three seats at which apple juice has been served and one at which orange juice has been served, we can identify this seat with the phrase 'orange juice seat'. So it can be meaningful, and so ca, probably, any phrase be meaningful. But the entire context that makes them meaningful has to be supplied and doesn't tell us anything much about the world or how it works. — angslan

I'm not sure how much of what I'm about to say relates to your point, but your post triggered much of my response. Hopefully there will be some overlap.

After studying philosophy of language for some time there has been this bit of skepticism in the back of my mind about many things. It seems that since we use language to describe reality, all of our constructs, the one you posted, and the one I'm about to post, come with a certain set of presuppositions that only have meaning within a social linguistic construct. So we construct a reality, or what we believe to be reality in this linguistic context, and what we construct is only an approximation of reality. Moreover, even the word reality will be argued about, and even if we do agree about the meaning of the word reality, it only has sense within that particular language-game. In fact, I'm not even sure I can make sense in the way that I want, because making sense and not making sense are confined linguistically. It's as though my thoughts about reality are constricted by language, as though there is a part of me that can't relate - it's a kind of mysticism (no it is mysticism -what cannot be said), but even this brings a kind of baggage that I may not want. What's really weird about all of this, is that when I say, "my thoughts," this only has meaning within our confined linguistic space, i.e., the way I'm using the word thought, only has meaning or sense linguistically, and I'm trying to go beyond what can be said.

All of this reminds me of the early Wittgenstein, and his ideas of sense, senseless, and nonsense. What gives sense to what we say necessarily occurs in language, senseless is something on the border region between sense and nonsense; and nonsense for Wittgenstein was going beyond what can be said, it was the mystical. So there is this constant tension between what can be said and what cannot be said. It's as though I want to talk about what cannot be talked about, and in some way this may relate to the mystical side of Wittgenstein's conclusion in the Tractatus. This is really weird, because I think we all experience this, it's as though our private experiences in some sense will always remain private, because there is no way to attach meaning to the private, it has to be done publicly. Once meaning happens publicly it necessarily destroys, in some sense, our private experiences. Why? Because meaning or sense is a public thing, again this tension.

So what' my conclusion? My conclusion is that in some weird sense it's difficult to conclude anything, because all of our talk leads us astray in some sense, it's too confining, it doesn't quite grasp reality, or what I would call ultimate reality. It's as though I'm trying to make sense where there is no sense, trying to go beyond language, whatever that means. Trying to climb up the ladder with language, but once I'm the ladder, I must throw the ladder away. But you may ask, "Where does this leave me?" -- I'm not sure, maybe it leads absolutely nowhere. So in a sense I agree with Angslan, even though Angslan may not see any relationship between what he said, and what I'm saying. Unless you've had these thoughts this may all appear as so much nonsense.