.

I think the question is a misunderstanding. The rules for justification don't need to be justified, no more than the rules for chess need to be justified. They're simply the rules that make the game of epistemology work.

Ya, there are those who think that Wittgenstein missed the boat about Moore's conclusions. My tendency is to agree with Wittgenstein's interpretation of Moore. Although in a larger sense it doesn't matter, because Wittgenstein's ideas have an importance that goes beyond what Moore is saying.

I've also been thinking about how difficult it is for people to give up a belief, especially if it's something they've been working on for a long time (mainly thinking of academics). They have so much invested in the idea that it becomes psychologically difficult to admit their conclusions are wrong. It's also true of people who have a religious world view; their friends and family have the same world view, so it becomes very difficult to break that line of thinking.

I guess much of this has to do with the psychology of belief, which I've been interested in for quite some time.

I agree with your comments about humility and arrogance. One can possess these character traits whatever one believes, rational or not. I'm mainly talking about attitudes, and attitudes really have little to do with correct conclusions.

I think a tinge of skepticism might be healthy. So as I look at my world view, I'm always asking myself if I have it right, what am I missing; and I do this with much of what I believe. I'm not advocating complete skepticism or anything close, but I do think there is a healthy skepticism if balanced correctly. Although I'm not quite sure what that balance might be. It' very easy to cross the line into irrational skepticism.

I agree with that perspective.

Another pet peeve, people who make up their own definitions.

My pet peeve is to all who think they know something, including myself. We don't know shit!! I'm still wondering why I'm not a skeptic.

.

It would make for an interesting study. It's fascinating that the mind will take the word and associate it with what's closest in meaning or closest in sound. It reminds me of how the mind will fill in our blind spot with the appropriate surroundings.

Wittgenstein didn't have much to say about poetry other than a few scattered remarks. For me, and I'm not really into poetry, it seems to touch a part of us in the same way music touches us. Doesn't it seem that music and poetry touch a part of us that's purely subjective, it reaches down into the depths of our being in a way nothing else does? It would be an interesting subject to investigate.

.

It's true that I'm in possession of my hands in a way that I'm not when it comes to chess pieces. However, it's still the case that what I mean by hand is linguistically the same as what I mean by bishop, that is, the word hand and bishop are arbitrarily assigned to objects. However, this is beside the point because Moore isn't talking about linguistic justification, and neither is Wittgenstein. As we examine the use of the word know we come to see that there are various ways of justifying what we know. For example, we can have knowledge based on sensory experiences, we can have knowledge based on linguistic training (the e.g. above), we can have knowledge based on testimonial evidence, and we can have knowledge based on argument, inference, or proof; and it's the latter that Moore is doing, and it's the latter that the skeptic is arguing against. While it's true that we can know what things are called based on linguistic training, this is separate from much of Wittgenstein's analysis of Moore's propositions.

I'm not sure if you're saying that my interpretation is incorrect, or if Wittgenstein is incorrect, or both. It seems you're saying that both are incorrect.

.

Fair enough

That isn't a statement. It's a question. It's meaningless to speak of "contradicting" a question. — Michael Ossipoff

Well, let me quote you:

Words don't accurately and completely describe any reality. — Sam26

But now you say:

Are there objects in this reality, is there light and darkness, is there space, are there beings? — Sam26


You mean the one about whose complete and accurate describability with words you're contradicting yourself? :D

Which is it? — Michael Ossipoff

So if it's meaningless to speak of a contradiction when a question is involved, then why did you say I was contradicting myself? I thought you saw what I saw, namely, that the question was rhetorical, used to make a specific point. The point being that in any reality there are going to be quantifiable things (objects, light and darkness, space, beings, etc.) otherwise what are you talking about? No need to show me your logic acumen, but technically you're correct.

You're the one who said...

How broad a range of things do you think that words accurately and completely describe? To me, it seems that the burden of proof is on the person who claims that words accurately and completely describe all of Reality. — Michael Ossipoff

So if I say "Words don't accurately and completely describe any reality," and "Any reality is going to have something in it (e.g., my rhetorical question) for us to describe," are these statements contradictory? From my point of view they are not, nothing in these statements "accurately and completely" describes anything.

You're saying that words don't accurately and completely describe all of reality, and on this point we're in agreement. I probably misunderstood parts of your statements.

As I've already clarified more than once, I'm not interested in debating whether or not all of Reality is describable and discussable. — Michael Ossipoff

That's fine, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to address the idea. There're others reading these post who might be interested in the ideas and where they lead.

In trying to reply to you, it's difficult to know what you mean. Before you post, you need to be sure that you know what you mean. That would help.

Otherwise, you're wasting people's time. — Michael Ossipoff

I wouldn't want to waste your time. Yes, that could have been written better. Sometimes I'll quickly respond to something without editing, and it will be as clear as mud. It happens from time-to-time, but generally I do fair job, I think.

Nonsense. The topic, when I replied to it, was far from NDEs. The survival of consciousness is a metaphysical topic, and the discussion had moved away from NDEs. — Michael Ossipoff

I find that you tend to be a bit snide in some of your remarks. Yes, the topic has drifted away from the original discussion, but my point stands.

I don't doubt that NDEs are real (whatever that means), valid and true. And they seem tell of an impression of something good after life.

But it should be emphasized that NDEs occur early in death, and therefore don't give any evidence about the specifics of what happens later--reincarnation or sleep. — Michael Ossipoff

What does it mean for an NDE to be real? That must be a difficult concept for you to apprehend. Real in the sense that any of our sensory perceptions are real. In other words, they're not hallucinations, illusions, dreams, imaginings, etc.

Actually many NDEs do tell us that some things about living out other lives, not the specifics obviously, but enough to draw the conclusion that there probably something to the idea.

As for the accounts of people repeating conversations that took place when they were supposedly dead, it has been observed that people who are apparently dead can hear, and later remember what they heard, much better than anyone would have expected. So, no need for a supernatural explanation for that. — Michael Ossipoff

No one made the claim that these people were dead, the claim is that they're near death, hence the term near death experience. A doctor may make the claim that the person was dead, that is, that there was no heart beat or no brain activity, but there is an obvious difference between that and permanent death.

The point about people hearing and remembering things when in this state, is that many of them have no brain activity. And even if there is some remnant of brain activity, how is that their experiences are much more vivid than what we experience with normal brain activity? One would think that their experiences would be less vivid with minimal brain activity. Yes, it has been reported that people "hear and later remember what they heard...," many of these come from NDEs.

As for people observing things (like a shoe on the roof) that the couldn't have known, there are various explanations that don't require out-of-body-ness:

Maybe the person had previously seen that, from another building, etc.

Maybe someone else had mentioned it to them, either before or after the near-death.

In either of those instances, their account of perceiving it could be genuine, or could have been unintentionally later subconsciously embellished from the information received.

Or, on the other hand, it could be a hoax, on the part of the patient, or a family-member, or someone else who wanted a better NDE story.

The trouble with some of you guys is that you refuse to consider the possibility of hoax or honest subconscious embellishment.

"How do you explain that?!!" Well, the original reporting person, or the author of the book, made it up.

That goes for UFO stories, ghost accounts, alleged memories of past lives, etc. — Michael Ossipoff

Of course any one (or some) NDE can be explained away with other explanations, that's why it's important to look at a wide variety of reports from a variety of sources and cultures. And to compare these reports with UFO accounts, ghost stories, and past lives, etc., is to show complete ignorance of the facts as presented in my original argument. These testimonial statements are just as strong as any testimonial evidence.

It's not that difficult to rule out the possible explanations you've presented. It's been done many times. Moreover, to not consider those possible explanations would be an error of someone who examined the testimonial evidence in a very cursory way.

I find your remarks to be not well thought through. Your rebuttals are more like those of a freshman. At least I put forth an inductive argument. You may not agree with it, but you make it sound like your possible answers explain these NDEs away, but they're just the kind of responses that someone would make who never studied NDEs, and who never closely studied the testimonial evidence.

What?! Saying that "words don't accurately and completely describe any reality," contradicts the statement "Are there objects in this reality, is there light and darkness, is there space, are there beings?" Where in the latter statement do you see me accurately and completely describing any reality? These are general statements that have very little specificity to them in terms of kinds of objects, the kind of light that may or may not be in this reality, whether it's 3 or 10 dimensions of space, and, are the beings biological or composed of pure light. If anything the statement supports the contention. It surely doesn't contradict the former statement.

Let me also remind you of what the thread is about, viz., NDEs, and whether they support the inference that consciousness survives bodily existence. If you people want to talk about whether your opinions support some theory of metaphysics, start up another thread. Thank you. :nerd:

How broad a range of things do you think that words accurately and completely describe? To me, it seems that the burden of proof is on the person who claims that words accurately and completely describe all of Reality. — Michael Ossipoff

Words don't accurately and completely describe any reality. People who have had NDEs are able to describe their experiences, and that which they are unable to describe, is just a matter of expanding our language to include new descriptions or explanations. Moreover, if you can experience something, then it can be described in some way.

What is it exactly that you're claiming we can't describe? I can't make any sense out of a reality that can't be described. Are there objects in this reality, is there light and darkness, is there space, are there beings? There maybe aspects of reality that we know nothing about, but that's different from saying we can't describe some reality. And if it comes down to being able to accurately and completely describe some reality your not saying anything new or significant.

Like I said, our thinking is so far apart one wonders if there is any common ground epistemologically. The amount of work to bridge the gap isn't worth the time. The effort to bridge the gap would be in proportion to the importance of the topic.

Yes, it is never clear. All we have are our observations, some clues, and we try to put together the pieces into some image (ontology) of nature. These are not proofs, they are only clues. — Rich

We are so far apart in our thinking. I'm not saying it's never clear, I'm saying that the assumption you made about evidence of past lives isn't clear. For me it's clear that consciousness survives bodily existence, for example, because the testimonial evidence is very strong.

Maybe, but it sure isn't clear that that's the case. Of course if it's true, as I think it is, that we do live out many lives, then it would seem to follow that some of our knowledge might leak through.

Here is an interesting speculative point: Let's assume that consciousness does survive bodily existence, and that it's true that our consciousness can be inserted into different realities. Moreover, let's also assume that this reality is similar to a holographic program. If this is a program, then it may also be the case that not all who appear to be real, are real. For example, what if some of the humans are merely program generated. In other words, what if being inserted into the program is like going into a game like World of Warcraft, where you assume a character (in our case a body), but that other characters in the program are simply generated by the program (NPCs). It would seem to be a reasonable conclusion to infer based on the assumed premise.

Like before we were born — CuddlyHedgehog

Saying death is "like before you were born" almost assumes the very thing you're arguing against. As if you could compare what its like being conscious and self-aware, to what it was like to be non-existent, with absolutely no self-awareness. There would be nothing to compare it to. It's not like you could think back to what it was like before your birth and say, "Oh ya, I remember that, it was the absence of X, Y, and Z."

Yes, the assumption that "real" and "existent" (and even "is") mean something is the cause of much philosophical confusion.

"Real", "existent" and "is" are metaphysically undefined.

I use "Reality" (capitalized) to mean "All", or "All that is", where "is" is just as broadly defined. I don't use "real" metaphysically, because, as I said, it isn't metaphysically-defined. I avoid "exist" too, for the same reason.

Ii use "is" with the broadest, unlimited, meaning.

I take "exist" to refer only to elements of metaphysics, but I avoid using "exist".

But yes, much of philosophical discussion and debate seems to be unnecessary and pointless quibbling about what exists or is real.

Michael Ossipoff — Michael Ossipoff

My point isn't that these words lack meaning, or that they're "metaphysically undefined." My point is that they're like other words that tend to be vague, and as a result they don't lend themselves to precise definitions. This doesn't mean we can't use them when speaking about metaphysics, it simply means that we must use them in the same linguistic way. For example, if someone has an NDE and sees their deceased father or mother, then I think it's appropriate to use exist or real in the same way we normally use those words. However, in order to do this, there must be some objective component associated with normal reality, which is the case with a vast majority of NDEs. If one is using the term exists to refer to something completely subjective, then that's problematic, at least in terms of trying to demonstrate that what you're seeing is like seeing anything else.

The other point I was trying to make is that the way we use words given any sensory experience, namely, the commonality of use, is how they should be used in terms of NDEs. If there are a large number of people seeing the same things, and there is some way of objectively verifying what they're seeing, then we can use the words in the same way we normally use them. It doesn't matter, at least to me, that what we're talking about is physical reality or metaphysical reality.

Ya, I understand the arguments, I just disagree, especially that truth fits into some pragmatic view of epistemology. For me it's much broader in scope, and of course there are those in science and in other fields of study who hold such beliefs, but even this idea is based on arguments within our linguistic framework.

I'm not sure what it would even mean to say that "...no one view of reality is valid in itself..." that is, what is a valid view of reality other than a certain consensus in terms of linguistic meaning. We say this or that about reality, and we reach a certain consensus about the meaning of reality within language. When someone starts using language to suit their own particular world view, then we end up with a subjective view that collapses knowledge.

I don't disagree with everything you're saying, that is, I do think there is a pragmatic approach to epistemology that works in certain cases, but it doesn't explain the many uses of these concepts beyond what's pragmatic. So it's more than just being useful.

All you're really saying Josh, as with the example you gave, is that reality is subjective, and within that subjectivity there are various interpretations of truth or falsity that may or may not line up with your view of reality. It's as if you're saying that no one view of reality is valid in itself, only valid within a particular framework. Of course there are people who believe that reality is like this, but there are just too many good arguments against it.

No, there aren't as many rules as one wishes to make, there are rules that define what it means to have a good argument, it's called logic. Your appeal to the subjective may seem more open, but it destroys the very thing people are trying to establish, namely, objective facts. Try using your own rules (your own clues) to do mathematics, which is similar to logic, the rules establish a basis for inference.

Your simplistic way of talking about what it means to reason opens you up to all kinds of strange beliefs.

I don't see anything reasonable about it. How do you define reasonable? Generally in a philosophy forum what's reasonable is about the argument itself, it's not some subjective notion that means whatever we want it to mean. For example, there are rules that define good inductive arguments, so if one presents a good inductive argument, then one has presented a reasonable argument. I see no argument, either inductive or deductive in his comments, which is why I don't think it's reasonable.

All you're doing is stating your opinion. Give me an argument based on good reasons or evidence that the conclusion is false. Are you saying there is no valid way of determining what good testimonial evidence is?

Moreover, your opinion is more of a reflection of an attitude than having good reasons.

One of the ways of knowing if an experience is real is by examining the experience based on others who have had the experience. Of course this in itself is not enough, there must be some way of objectively verifying the consistency of the testimony; and how do we do this normally? We do it by comparing the testimony with others who have had similar experiences, and comparing it with objectively verifiable facts. There has to be some consistency, but there doesn't have to be perfect consistency, which is why it is very important to have a large sample of testimonials to draw from.

Actually if you look at the first page of this thread, a few posts down, you will see that my view of consciousness and NDEs is based on the testimonial evidence. So I'm drawing a conclusion based on the evidence. I'm not assuming my conclusion without evidence or good reasons. Now we can disagree over what counts as good evidence, which is what much of the thread is about, but your portrayal of the argument as presupposing my answer or conclusion, is mistaken.

In the previous post we mentioned the problem of talking about NDEs, that is, part of the problem is one of linguistics. In other words, what do we mean when we say that NDEs are real or not real? This of course is the central question in the discussion. Many will describe NDEs as a hallucination, which carries with it the idea of not being real, or not conforming to what we normally mean by real. In our everyday lives what is real or not real is dependent on what we as humans generally experience as a whole. This is not to say that just because something falls outside the norm that it is not real, it just means that generally we can question or be skeptical of a claim that does not fit within our general framework of sensory experiences. To reiterate the point, what is meant by the term real, generally, is what fits within our everyday objective reality, namely, what people experience in their everyday lives.

Another important aspect of this discussion is how we incorporate the term real into our world view. Our world view will also shape how we use the term within the scope of how we view our world. If for example you are an atheist, agnostic, Christian, or a Muslim, your view of what is real will have metaphysical implications, either negative or positive depending on your belief system. An atheist may use the term real to refer only to what is physical; whereas a religious person's view of reality expands into an area that the atheist disputes, at least generally. Thus the discussion can get quite cumbersome based on one's world view, as is the case with any philosophical discussion.

We have been talking about what is deemed real in relation to an objective reality, but we also know that what is real does not always fit what we deem to be objective reality. For example, most people will not dispute the reality of their subjective experiences, but they are real nonetheless. However, note that subjective experiences such as pain, happiness, depression, etc., have an objective component that gives meaning to the terms. Therefore, even when discussing our subjective experiences they manifest themselves within a shared environment, and within our shared linguistic framework. Even our thoughts can be demonstrated in an objective way, that is, expressed linguistically or manifested in our actions apart from language.

There is still even more confusion involved in this discussion, and that is, even if the experience is not objectively real, it can still be described as a real experience. After all even hallucinations are real, but that does not mean they are part of what we mean by our shared objective reality. In fact, hallucinations are purely subjective, and not part of a shared reality. For the most part we do not share our hallucinations, they tend to be person relative. More importantly they are not by definition part of an objective reality. However, note again, that this does not mean they are not real experiences. So what we mean by real can be very ambiguous and confusing, especially when talking about NDEs, or any other subject for that matter.

Hallucinations should not be confused with illusions. For example, hallucinations are generally person relative, and do not fit within our shared sensory experiences; whereas illusions can be a shared sensory experience. A magician for example may perform an act where he is creating the illusion of sawing someone in half, which can be seen by more than one person. This is in contrast to what happens when people experience a hallucination.

Part of the problem with this discussion is being clear about what we mean by our terms, that is, we want to be as clear and precise as possible. But given the vagueness of the terms involved, it is difficult, if not impossible, to speak with linguistic precision in absolute terms. However, do not conclude from this lack of precision, that we cannot come to an understanding of the terms involved, or that we cannot ascertain the facts, because nothing could be further from the truth. Language is not mathematics, and we should not expect the kind of precision from language that we generally expect from mathematics.

For many people the question that arises is the following: "Are these experiences (NDEs) real?" People have a variety of experiences, and most sensory experiences can be understood in terms of our everyday lives. However, some experiences are so out of the ordinary that we question whether or not they are real. The problem is, what do we mean by real? For example, everyone knows what it means to have a dream, and we would acknowledge that dreams are real experiences, but dreams are not part of our waking life, namely, what we all experience together as part of a shared reality.

We have labels for experiences that are outside the norm, such as, hallucinations, dreams, illusions, out-of-body experiences (OBEs), and near death experiences (NDEs) to name a few. So the experiences are real in the sense that we all share these kinds of experiences, but what are we asking when we ask if NDEs are real? What most people seem to be asking, is, if these experiences are only occurring within our mind and not part of our shared everyday experiences, then they tend to reflect subjective (inner, single point of view) experiences, and are not necessarily part of our everyday objective reality. So when NDEs are juxtaposed with physical reality (objective reality) how do they compare? Are NDEs simply subjective experiences that lack any correspondence with an objective reality?

Part of the problem when considering NDEs, is how we describe such experiences. We tend to use vague terms like real or reality, words that have a variety of meanings depending on context among other things. There is no precise definition that will work when describing what is real or not. There are just a complex web of uses that correctly fit within a variety of linguistic statements. So if we are looking to be precise in terms of what is real or not, we are not going to find a neat fitting term that works in every context. For example, when physicists use the term real or reality, what they mean by the term reality is much different from what the man on the street means by reality. One of the problems that occurs in philosophy, and in other areas of study, is that we tend to look for some theory or definition that will precisely and absolutely describe or answer the question, when no such theory or definition is possible. All we can do is look at a range of correct uses of the terms involved.

Wittgenstein compared the definition of certain words to family resemblances, that is, there are many overlapping resemblances that fit within the descriptive universe of family members; and just as no one description will adequately describe all family members, so no one definition or theory of meaning will cover every use of certain words. The example Wittgenstein uses in the Philosophical Investigations is the word game, there is no one definition that will describe every possible use of the word game because the universe of uses is just too large to describe precisely.

I'm not familiar with Husserl's argument.

Whereas 'mind' is 'what knows', not 'what is known', so that trying to 'know the mind' is trying to know that which is never 'other' to us. (If this sounds like a Zen Koan, that is not entirely coincidental.) — Wayfarer

I think what you seem to be saying is something akin to the eye verses its visual field, i.e., within the visual field one cannot observe the eye because it's not in the visual field. If this is what you're saying, I would agree, but only if there was one mind, but there are other minds, at least according to my metaphysical take on things, and other minds can perceive and know objectively that these other minds exist.

When I use consciousness, I'm using it as a synonym for mind. So yes, for me at least, it does mean mind. I don't see what else it could mean. And when I use mind in this broad sense, I'm using it as something separate from the brain.

Your comment reminds of people thinking that a flying machine would be magic, it's similar. New ideas, or ideas that seem strange, are always looked at with scorn.

My opinion, it's not an argument, but it's based on some evidence of what people experienced in an NDE, is that there is a primary consciousness that links everything together. This primary consciousness is not emergent, which is why I call it primary. There is nothing for it to emerge from.

Again, another opinion based on some evidence, is that we exist as part of that consciousness, and we can participate in every possible reality that that consciousness can create. We can insert ourselves into various realities. I believe we are eternal, and that our existence never ends.

Well, the flesh and blood brain is just like everything else, quantum information meshed into the holographic fabric. — Rich

I agree with this. Based on my metaphysics, the brain is like a receiver, and it's existence is holographic, just like everything else in the universe.

Moreover, for me, all of existence, metaphysical or otherwise is a product of consciousness. Consciousness, it seems to me, is the fundamental stuff behind all that exists. However, consciousness is not created, it's primary, and it's at the bottom of the universe. All that can be said to exist is set into motion by consciousness.