The following argument is concluding based on the testimonial evidence that consciousness survives the body. The basis for the conclusion is the testimonial evidence of those who have had an NDE (near death experience).

The Inductive Argument:

The following argument is based on the testimonial evidence of those who have experienced an NDE, and the conclusion follows with a high degree of probability. As such, one can claim to know the conclusion is true. This argument makes such a claim.

Each of the aforementioned criteria serve to strengthen the testimonial evidence. All of the criteria in the previous paragraphs work hand-in-hand to strengthen the conclusion, and these criteria serve to strengthen any claim to knowledge. If we have a large enough pool of evidence based on these five criteria, we can say with confidence that we know that consciousness survives the death of the body. In other words, we can say what is probably the case, but not what is necessarily the case.

Again, if there is a high degree of probability that these testimonials reflect an objective reality, then we can also say with confidence, that we know consciousness survives the death of the body. Thus, our knowledge is based on objective criteria, not on purely subjective claims.

We will now look at the testimonial evidence in terms of the five stated criteria, and how these testimonials support the conclusion.

First, what is the number of people who claim to have had an NDE? According to a 1992 Gallop poll about 5% of the population has experienced an NDE; and even if this poll is off by a little we are still talking about hundreds of millions of people. Thus, the number of accounts of NDEs is very high, much higher than what we would normally need to decide the veracity or accuracy of the testimonials, and much higher that what is normally needed to draw a proper conclusion.

Also, as was mentioned in the previous post, numbers in themselves are not enough, which is why the other criteria must be coupled with numbers.

The second criteria of good testimonial evidence is variety, i.e., do we have evidence from a variety of sources? The answer to this question is in the affirmative. NDEs have been reported in every culture from around the world, which by definition means that we are getting reports from different religious views, and different world views. NDEs also span every age group, from young children, to the middle-aged, and finally to the aged. The testimonial reports come from doctors, nurses, scientists, atheists, agnostics, literally from every imaginable educational level and background. NDEs occur in a variety of settings, including drowning, electrocution, while awake, while on the operating table, after a heart attack, etc. People have also reported having shared an NDE with someone else, although rarely. They have happened when there is no heartbeat, with the blood drained from the brain, and with no measurable brain activity. They have been reported to happen with a minimal amount of stress, i.e., without being near death. Finally, there have been many thousands more reporting these and similar events happening to those who have taken DMT (N,N-Dimethyltryptamine), which is an illegal schedule 1 drug. These DMT reports are also reports that are happening without being near death.

The third criteria is scope of the conclusion, and the scope of this conclusion is limited to consciousness surviving the body. The conclusion claims that we can know that consciousness survives bodily death.

The fourth criteria is truth of the premises. To know if the premises are true we need corroboration of the testimonial evidence, a high degree of consistency, and firsthand testimony. In all or most of these cases, it seems clear that we have all three. We have millions of accounts that can be corroborated by family members, friends, doctors, nurses, and hospice workers. Corroboration is important in establishing some objectivity to what is a very subjective experience. It lends credence to the accounts. One example of corroboration is given in Pam's NDE out of Atlanta, GA, which can be seen on Youtube.

Consistency is also important to the establishment of the truth of the premises. We have a high degree of consistency across a wide variety of reports. What are these consistent reports?

1) Seeing one's body from a third person perspective, i.e., from outside one's body, and hearing and seeing what's happening around their bodies.
2) Having intense feelings of being loved, and also intense feeling of peace.
3) Seeing a light or tunnel in the distance and feeling that one is being drawn to the light, or moving through the tunnel towards the light.
4) Seeing deceased loved ones.
5) Seeing beings of light that one may interpret as Jesus, Mary, Muhammad, an angel, or just a loving being that one may feel connected to.
6) Heightened sensory experiences, viz., feeling that one is having an ultra real experience, as opposed to a dream or a hallucination.
7) Communication that happens mind-to-mind, not verbally.
8) Seeing beautiful landscapes.
9) Seeing people who are getting ready or waiting to be born.
10) Having a life-review by a loving being who is not judgmental in any way, but simply showing you how important it is to love, and the importance of your actions on those you come in contact with.
11) Feeling as though one has returned home. This is also confirmed by people who were told they chose to come to Earth.
12) A feeling of oneness with everything, as though consciousness is at the bottom of everything.
13) Memories of who they really are return, as though they temporarily forgot who they were, and where they came from.
14) There are also reports of knowledge returning, and many questions being answered.
15) Understanding that ultimately we cannot be harmed.
16) That we are eternal beings simply entering into one of many realities.

These are just some of the reports from those who experienced an NDE, and some of these reports are confirmed by those who have taken DMT.

Another aid in establishing the truth of the testimonial evidence are firsthand accounts, as opposed to hearsay. There are literally thousands of firsthand accounts being reported by the International Association of Near Death Studies. And according to polling, there are hundreds of millions of firsthand accounts of NDEs.

The fifth criteria is cogency of the premises. Whether the argument is cogent for you depends on many factors, but many people have heard of near death experiences, so the concept is not an unfamiliar one. It is not going to be cogent for everyone, but with a little study and reading it can be cogent. It is not difficult to understand the concept. Although it is probably going to be difficult to understand how it is metaphysically possible. This argument is claiming that it is highly probable that consciousness survives the death of the body, and that the conclusion is very strong based on what makes for strong inductive arguments.

The further claim of this argument is that I know that I know the conclusion is true. Is it possible the conclusion is wrong? Of course it is possible, but we do not want to base a belief on what is possible, but on what is likely the case. All kinds of things are possible, but that does not mean we should believe them.

The following is a deductive proof.
So how would I construct a proof? It is very simple. The following is a deductive argument based on the evidence of the inductive argument.

Modus Ponens:

(1) If it is true that NDE reports are accurate, just as any veridical experience is, then consciousness survives the death of the body.
(2) It is true that NDE reports are accurate, just as any veridical experience is.
(3) Conclusion: Consciousness survives the death of the body.

As with any deductive argument all you have to do is dispute any premise, i.e., show that any premise is not true.

I believe the inductive argument is more apt to be believed, so it is a stronger argument in some ways.

Yes, there are a variety of ways that people claim to have knowledge. Christians and those in other religions claim to have a kind of special internal revelation. However, I'm not able to make any sense of these subjective experiences in terms of having knowledge. It would seem to me that if we use these kinds of justifications we're in danger of equating knowledge with mere opinion; and not just any kind of opinion, but to reduce knowledge to purely subjective experiences. And if not to reduce knowledge to the purely subjective, to at least put it on the same level with other objective ways of knowing.

No, but I did say there were some preliminary issues to get out of the way.

Yes, which goes to my point about having a variety of testimonial evidence. In such a case it's possible that one person's view might outweigh the views of the many.

I agree, if you had witnesses that had a reason to misrepresent the truth that would definitely undermine the reports.

So what makes for strong testimonial evidence? Let's consider five criteria that strengthens testimonial evidence.

First, a high number of testimonials gives a better picture of the events in question. So the greater the number the more likely we are to get an accurate report, but not necessarily, i.e., high numbers don't always translate into accurate testimonial evidence, which is why one must also consider other important factors.

Second, seeing the event from a variety of perspectives will also help to clear up some of the testimonial reports. For example, different cultural perspectives, different age groups, different historical perspectives, different religious perspectives, different times of the day, and even considering people with different physical impairments (like the blind) will help clear up some of the biased and misremembered reports.

Third, is the consistency of the reports, i.e., are there a large number of consistent or inconsistent reports. While it is important to have consistency in the testimonial evidence, inconsistency doesn't necessarily negate all of the reports. When dealing with a large number of testimonials you will almost certainly have contradictory statements, this happens even when people report on everyday events. Thus, one must weed out the testimony that does not fit the overall picture, and paint a picture based on what the majority of accounts are testifying to. It doesn't necessarily mean that what the minority is saying is unimportant, only that accuracy tends to favor what the majority are reporting.

Fourth, can the testimony be corroborated by any other objective means, thereby strengthening the testimonial evidence as given by those who make the claims.

Fifth, are the testimonials firsthand accounts, as opposed to being hearsay. In other words, is the testimonial evidence given by the person making the claim, and not by someone simply relaying a story they heard from someone else. This is very important in terms of the strength of the testimonials.

Each of these five criteria serve to strengthen the testimonial evidence. All of these work hand-in-hand to strengthen a particular testimonial conclusion, and they serve to strengthen any claim to knowledge. If we have a large enough pool of evidence based on these five criteria we can say with confidence that the conclusion follows. In other words, we can say what is probably the case, not what is necessarily the case.

What other criteria would help to strengthen testimonial evidence?

I wouldn't say that concepts exist in minds, and I'm not necessarily suggesting that you're saying this, but only pointing this out as a point of clarification. This seems similar to the idea that words point to objects, and in this case the concept somehow exists in the mind, as something we can point to. The concepts, as you seem to suggest, find their use in language. Thus, their existence is demonstrated in how we use the concepts in propositions for example. The existence of a concept is quite a separate issue from the issue of whether the concept has an instance in reality. So obviously there is the concept hobbit, but that is a separate issue in terms of whether hobbits actually exist, or have been instantiated. Concepts can inhere as part of their use in a language, and that is demonstrated in a variety of ways, such as, referring to concepts that get their life in a fictional work, in which case the concepts have no existence (hobbits for example), apart from the use of the concept in that work of fiction.

The existence of X is not dependent upon the existence of the concept. Thus, things can exist apart from us referring to them as part of a language. However, we want to know whether it is true or false, to say that hobbits exists in reality, as opposed to being part of a fictional work.

I'm not simply yoking existence to concepts, but yoking existence to whether or not that concept has an instance in reality. This doesn't mean that existence is dependent upon the concepts, but talking about existence is dependent upon the concepts. So obviously things could exist apart from minds.

I think the testimonial evidence is overwhelming. You're right though, it can be a difficult subject to talk about.

Ya, much of philosophy is based on language confusions. I agree Banno. In fact, at least half of the threads in this forum are simply linguistic confusions.

What are v people? Many people who have had an NDE report remembering past lives, or have reported about other beings who have lived many lives. I believe it's possible as long as there is a continuity of the self. This has also been confirmed by people who have take DMT.

First, your definition of omnipotence isn't correct. A being that is omnipotent is a being that can do anything that is logically possible. Moreover, your argument is contradictory, i.e., it's similar to asking if an omnipotent being can make a rock bigger than he can lift.

It's not exactly like a dream, but much of it is analogous. I believe all of reality is a product of a mind or minds.

Think of it as akin to waking up. Thus, as moving from one state of consciousness to another. While in a dream, it's still you, but just in a lower state of awareness. The main point is that there is continuity of the self. If there is no continuity of memory or experience, then it wouldn't be you, and that I think is what is wrong with the doctrine of reincarnation - it loses this continuity. What I have learned by studying NDEs is that the continuity is maintained.

Let me try again Arkady. For example, if I say, "Hobbits do not exist," for my statement to be meaningful, and in particular true, it would have to be about something. However, it can't be about hobbits, as I said above, since there are none; and if it were about hobbits, it would be about nothing. Thus, what the statement is about, is the concept of hobbits, not the subject of hobbits. The statement is saying that the concept of hobbits has no instances or individuals of which it is true. Therefore, existence is not something individuals possess; it is simply a way of expressing something about the concept.

Another important point, is that we must be able to explain the meaning of a proposition, including the subject, apart from knowing whether they're true or false. We also know that statements about hobbits are meaningful apart from knowing whether they are true or false. How is this possible? It possible because we understand the concept, and the only thing we know exists is the concept, not the subject. It can only make sense if the statement is about the concept, and not about the subject.

Moreover, we can coherently talk about the proposition that some X exists, or does not exist, because we are asking whether or not the concept X has an instance in reality. There is no inherent contradiction in the argument. Other philosophers who believed this were Kant and Russell, one being a theist, and the latter an atheist.

Although I don't agree with the argument you presented, I do think that you're on to something. I've been studying NDEs for quite some time, and if they are true it seems that we are part of a mind or consciousness, and that we are all linked through this mind. In fact, it's quite possible that the unifying principle that scientists are looking for, is in fact, consciousness. All reality might be created by a core consciousness (speculation), and our individuality may just be part of that core - a piece so to speak.

I think you're generally correct that the doctrine of reincarnation does have a problem with the continuity of the self. However, one can imagine a situation where one could live out many lives without this problem arising. I've thought about this in connection with NDEs, because many claim that we do live out many lives, not only in this reality but in other realities. It may be quite possible that the core self is what we return to, and that we can enter into a particular body to live out a particular life. Once we die, then we simply return to the core self, and our memories return, like waking from a dream. Some people who have had an NDE say this is exactly what happens to us.

The problem with statements with the word existence in them is that they appear to be about individuals such as God or Santa Claus. But really the word existence is about the concept, i.e., it's saying that the concept either has an instance in reality or it doesn't. To say that, for example, "God exists," is to say that the concept has an instance in reality, which would mean the statement is true.

If someone says, "Hobbits exist," in order for the statement to be meaningful it would have to be about something, but what could the statement be about? It can't be about Hobbits since there are none. Thus it's about the concept of Hobbits. Thus, existence isn't something individuals possess - instead it's a way of talking about concepts of individuals.

The real problem with any theory that tries to be precise with a definition of knowledge is that there are just too many uses of the word, i.e., we will never capture every possible use in a definition or theory. There are just family resemblances. Wittgenstein kept trying to make this point over and over again. However, people keep trying to do what's impossible. It's like trying to come up with a definition of the word game that covers every possible use. It can't be done, at least with many words.

I think we can generally say that most uses of the word knowledge do incorporate the idea of being justified in some way, but keep in mind there are many ways of justifying a belief besides inductive and deductive arguments.

The real problem with any theory that tries to be precise with a definition of knowledge is that there are just too many uses of the word, i.e., we will never capture every possible use in a definition or theory. There are just family resemblances. Wittgenstein kept trying to make this point over and over again. However, people keep trying to do what's impossible. It's like trying to come up with a definition of the word game that covers every possible use. It can't be done, at least with many words.

I think we can generally say that most uses of the word knowledge do incorporate the idea of being justified in some way, but keep in mind there are many ways of justifying a belief besides inductive and deductive arguments.

There are at least two way we can use the phrase "I am certain." One way it's used is to portray an inner subjective certainty, and one may do this by emphasizing one's certainty. Another way of using the word certainty is to use it as a synonym for knowledge. I am certain and here are the reasons or evidence. We forget sometimes the different language-games involved.

I am currently reading Ray Monk's book, The Duty of Genius. It is the most comprehensive book that I have ever read on the life of Ludwig Wittgenstein. Not only is it biographical, but it gives an in depth glimpse into Wittgenstein's thinking, not only in terms of philosophy, but culture, family, friends, and his personal struggles. It is worth getting if you like reading about Wittgenstein.

.

The position I propose to defend is weak naturalism. Conforming broadly to the standard of scientific inquiry known as methodological naturalism, it can be distinguished from the stronger position of philosophical naturalism, which claims categorically that the natural world is all there is. I'm also contending that naturalism is more probable than supernaturalism.

Weak naturalism: as far as we know, the natural world is all there is. I defend the claim that naturalism is more probable than supernaturalism... — Hugh Harris

My position, from a non-religious point of view, is that supernaturalism is much more probabilistic than either form of naturalism. I base this on my studies of near death experiences, which is based on the consistent testimonial evidence of NDEs across a wide variety of religious and non-religious cultures; across a wide variety of age groups; and occurring across a wide variety of experiences that can bring on an NDE. I haven't seen any argument from a naturalistic point of view that can explain these experiences away. The testimonial evidence, I would contend, which is based on literally millions of accounts of these experiences is very difficult to dismiss, i.e., based on the numbers, variety, and consistency of the testimony.

From a scientific point of view one may be able to dismiss the testimonial evidence, but that is only because of the nature of the scientific method. I would contend that testimonial evidence is a valid way of obtaining knowledge, viz., being justified that a certain conclusion is probably true. Testimonial evidence can be weak, but it can also be very strong if you have a large enough sampling across a wide variety of people, and as long as it remains relatively consistent.

My conclusion from NDEs is that there is life after the death of our bodies, i.e., that consciousness survives the body and is not dependent on the brain.

.

Belief (a propositional attitude) and reasoning (a cognitive process) are both psychological conditions. Belief (a proposition accepted as true):
1) Can be rational (based on reasoning), or irrational.
2) Is not fact (verified truth). — Galuchat

The act of reasoning, i.e., using logic to come to a conclusion is not a psychological condition. I would say that using a dictionary (if that's where you got this) is not the best way to come to a conclusion on this subject. It's no more a psychological condition than solving a math problem using the rules of mathematics. I agree that a belief, which can be propositional, is something we accept as true, and that these beliefs can be based on reasoning (correct or incorrect reasoning), and can be rational or irrational depending on how we reason, or depending on what led us to the conclusion.

Beliefs are states of mind, but it's the act of reasoning that I'm referring to when I talk about reason. How we use propositions to come to a conclusion. Most of what people believe, or a large part of what people believe has nothing to do with the act of reasoning - the act of drawing a conclusion.

Most people, in my experience, don't even care about the facts, especially when it comes to religion or politics. They associate themselves with the group, or a group, and they follow that group - the facts be damned. And if they point to the facts, it's the facts the group associates themselves with - some may indeed be facts, but others are facts as seen by the group (real or not). All you have to do is look at politics, one side creates a narrative regardless of what the facts are, and those associated with that group simply accept that narrative true or not. Those that create the narrative, do so to stay in power. They do it because they know if they create a certain narrative, and keep repeating it, the group will simply follow. It's a kind of group psychology.

There are facts, that I wouldn't dispute, but most people don't take the time to sort through what are or are not the facts. They don't even have the time. They're too busy living their lives, so they just buy into what sounds right to them. What sounds right, is right. Those in the UK who were for Brexit probably didn't have a clue what the facts were, and the same is true for those who were against it. This seems true for most of those who believed one way or another. Are there facts that support a particular conclusion one way or another, yes, but most people don't have a clue what those facts are. This is where group think comes in, people just follow the group, like sheep. You see this in religion especially.

.

.

For the most part beliefs have more to do with psychology than reason. Even people trained in proper reasoning techniques are not immune to how powerful psychological affects are in terms of what we believe. Our psychology has a powerful effect on how we see the evidence. As most of you know, how we see the facts determine our conclusions. I'm not saying that we can't be objective. I'm saying disagreements are mostly over how we see the evidence or facts, and our psychology has a powerful influence on our ability to see the facts, or not see the facts.

.

.

.

.

What you seem to be saying is that we never possess knowledge. We only possess claims of knowledge. Does that make any sense? — Harry Hindu

No, I'm not saying that we never possess knowledge. I'm simply pointing out that there is a difference between the definition of knowledge (justified true belief), and one's claim to knowledge. Just because one claims to have knowledge it doesn't follow that they do. By definition knowledge is a true belief, but knowledge claims are not by definition true. You seem to be conflating the two.

.

"Knowledge" is simply some set of instructions for interpreting sensory information. We have all had the experience of believing that we know something and then realize that we didn't know it at all, or were mistaken. "Knowledge" can be wrong. — Harry Hindu

When we talk about knowledge we are talking about language, and how we go about making a claim that we know something. If I say that "I know X," then presumably I have the evidence, or I have good reasons for making the claim to knowledge. However, knowledge by definition is true, as opposed to someone making a claim to knowledge. One's claim can always turn out false, i.e., saying one knows is different from how we define knowledge. We have all experienced making a claim to knowledge, but later we find out that the claim was false.

There are rules for saying that one "knows," and Wittgenstein shows us in On Certainty how we can unlock the rules by examining the many uses of the word know. Knowing though goes beyond simply sensory information, however, it also includes sensory information. For example, I can know the orange juice is sweet by tasting it, but knowing that triangles have three sides, is something that can be known apart from sensory experience. By definition triangles have three sides. This is not to say that I can't have a sensory experience of a triangle, but that my knowledge of what a triangle is not limited to sensory experience.

.

.

If language doesn't refer to things that are real, or accurate, then how is it that any one can talk about language itself? What does it mean to talk about, or communicate things about, language, like it's rules and symbols? What was W. doing when he talked on and on about language? What was he referring to? What was he getting at? — Harry Hindu

Where did you get the idea that "...language doesn't refer to things that are real, or accurate..." - Wittgenstein sure isn't saying this.

I'm not sure how your example hurts my argument. The point of an unconscious desire is that it's not conscious. However, in your example you're simply giving a different cause to the desire (hypnosis), but if you have a desire for apple pie, then you are aware of the desire. You may not be aware of the underlying cause, but that's a separate issue. Many of us are unaware of many of the causes for our behavior, and some of those causes may or may not be subconscious.

Much of our language, or psychologist's language, isn't accurate or as precise as it should be, and it's confusing.