This is Bernard Carr's view of consciousness. I find it fascinating.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aktS5zLUzbA

In the article cited what occurs is dependent on the brain. I suspect that your underlying assumption about the "higher self" underlies your evaluation of the evidence. — Fooloso4

I don't see that Dr. Parnia answers the question one way or another (depending on what you're referring to). I interpret the conclusion to be an open question that science needs to investigate further. I've followed Dr. Parnia for quite some time now and he's more careful about what he's concluding as a scientist, and that's understandable. That said, my reason for quoting that article is not that it necessarily supports all my conclusions, only that it's a peer-reviewed paper that concludes that NDEs are not consistent with hallucinations. I disagree with Dr. Parnia on some conclusions because I'm arriving at my conclusions using primarily testimonial evidence and sensory experience.

Some of my conclusions are indeed dependent on my evaluation of many thousands of testimonials. I classify NDEs into three categories. The third category is the most in-depth of all the NDEs, and it's this category that some of my conclusions come from. I haven't talked much about this in this thread.

You may see things differently, but the Esquire article is pretty damning.
a day ago — Fooloso4

I don't see it as damning at all, especially given my reason for posting it.

The following are some remarks on the logic of my argument, which is inductive as opposed to deductive. Inductive arguments are not proofs, i.e., they’re not deductive arguments. Sometimes people speak of inductive arguments as proofs, which is fine, but strictly speaking in logic only deductive arguments are proofs. So, I'm speaking of deductive arguments when I speak of logical proof. If a deductive argument is sound (valid and the premises are true) then the conclusion follows with absolute necessity. This means that the conclusion of a deductive argument follows with absolute certainty. On the other hand, the conclusion of an inductive argument doesn’t follow with absolute necessity, which is to say that the conclusion is only probabilistic. This means inductive arguments are either strong or weak based on the strength of the evidence. If the strength of the evidence is very strong, then the conclusion follows with a high degree of probability. So, if the conclusion follows with a high degree of probability, it’s highly likely to be true. Most of our knowledge is inductive, not deductive.

A common error in logic, and I see this error all over the place, is to think that any derogatory remark is an ad hominem attack (fallacy). Informal fallacies are committed when they are used as part of an argument, i.e., just because, for example, someone calls you stupid or makes some other derogatory remark, that doesn’t mean they’ve committed the ad hominem fallacy. I would think anyone who studied logic would know this, but apparently not. So, any accusation that someone has committed a fallacy must be seen in the argument itself, not just as a random statement apart from the argument. Moreover, one must demonstrate where the fallacy has occurred and not just accuse people of making a fallacy without any evidence, and pointing to a random statement that is not part of an argument is not evidence of committing a fallacy. I’m not just saying this as a note about this thread, although it applies here, I’m saying it as a general fact of the matter in many of the remarks in this forum.

The same can be said of any claim that someone is committing a fallacy, viz., is it in the actual argument? I gave the argument a few times in this thread so it's easy to check.

WoW! You got me. I give up. :gasp:

From the cited article:

“What has enabled the scientific study of death,” he continues, “is that brain cells do not become irreversibly damaged within minutes of oxygen deprivation when the heart stops. Instead, they ‘die’ over hours of time. This is allowing scientists to objectively study the physiological and mental events that occur in relation to death”.

This is not an OBE. It is something the body experiences as it approaches death. Death is a embodied process not an on/off switch. — Fooloso4

I agree. However, what I'm saying is that much of my argument depends on what people are experiencing during their NDE/OBE. It's not dependent on some definition of death, whether that's clinical death or some other definition that claims that none of these people arereally dead because of how long, e.g., cells remain alive. Besides the descriptions of these experiences are that they are near-death experiences, not death experiences.

For me, as I've said, the real question is whether there is something to the claim that people become separated from their bodies and whether they're having a third-person experience. The evidence, as my argument concludes, is that there is enough consistency and corroboration of the reports to conclude reasonably that consciousness is not dependent on the brain. There can be significant damage to the brain (e.g. Dr. Eban Alexander's brain damage is significant) and still, people give very lucid descriptions of what's happening around their body and what's happening many miles from their body.

Many people describe their experiences as being hyper-real. One would expect a damaged brain to produce something less than what we normally experience, not more than what's experienced by a normal functioning brain.

There is no doubt that death is an embodied process, but the question is whether consciousness survives death, and survives the annihilation of the body, and my conclusion is that it does survive. This of course is based on what people are experiencing during their NDE/OBE. For example, seeing deceased friends and relatives who have been dead for many years. If they're really seeing deceased people, who have been dead for many decades, then it tells us something about what happens when the body is completely destroyed. Most people argue that these are hallucinations, but I don't think they are based on my research of hallucinations and my research of the corroborative accounts.

So, if true, and I believe my conclusions are correct, what follows? So, not only do we survive death as individuals, but we return to our true nature, which is not human. In other words, our identity as humans ends with the death of the body. Our identity is not in this avatar (so to speak) but is connected with our higher self. You can think of it like an MMO game in which we take on the form of a particular race in the game (the avatar), and our higher self is sitting at the computer playing the game. So, we are simply much higher beings having human experiences.

Some speculate about whether we are living in a simulation. We are in a simulation, but it's not a computer simulation. The simulation is created by consciousness, i.e., consciousness is the source of this reality, and probably all reality except base reality (base reality is a Wittgensteinian hinge,but not something Witt would agree with), which is consciousness itself. It could be that consciousness created something that then creates reality, but we don't know. Consciousness may be able to create reality by its own volition. The implications of this could be that some people that we think are conscious are not conscious, i.e., they are like NPCs in a game. You could refer to them as zombies because they are so real that they can fool us, which is where AI is headed, if not there already.

Mathematics is generated from the base mind (consciousness) and the fact that that mind uses mathematics to create explains why we see mathematical properties throughout our universe. One could argue that Plato was on the correct path.

Those who speculate about a multiverse are probably correct, viz., that other universes exist, whether it's infinite, who knows, probably not.

I believe it's also true that time (not time as we know it, i.e., it may not be linear) is part of base reality, and it's necessary to have consciousness. There is no indication that base reality is outside time. As long as you can experience change in some sense, then time is a necessary feature of the base mind.

I see no evidence that any particular religion has it correct when it comes to the afterlife. My conclusions are that there is no hell, demons, Satan, or that we need to be saved from our sins, etc. In fact, from the perspective of the other side, there isn't even evil or sin as we think of it. Why? Because nothing can harm any of us in terms of our higher self. Something that I believe solves the problem of evil is that we choose to come here knowing full well that we are going to experience some very difficult things. Some of us choose to participate in some very nasty narratives, but none of us will be judged like many religions envision it. Are there choices that are better than others? Absolutely, and love which is at the core of consciousness is what we should strive for.

Do we have free will? Yes, but it may be limited because some things seem to be planned, so we may be free at some level and other things may be determined. Think of it like a river that's pulling you in a certain direction, that direction may be inevitable, but within the confines of the stream, you can still do certain things based on choices. How this plays out is only speculation.

Many more conclusions can be gleaned from NDEs. These are just some of my inferences.

It doesn't matter, the important thing is whether there is evidence of an OBE and whether the testimony confirms people experiencing things from a third-person point of view. You're too caught up in the meaning of death, who cares? It's not the concept that matters it's the experience! I don't care how many times it's pointed out, it's a moot point as far as I'm concerned. And who in the hell is using the term resurrection? Not me.

If you read the thread these kinds of responses have already been addressed in one form or another. There are peer-reviewed articles that address the hallucination theory; besides you can't corroborate hallucinations, i.e., others aren't seeing what you're seeing. And whether you consider someone dead or not doesn't address the OBE. Besides I'm using the clinical definition, not your definition. Also, if you read Eban Alexander's NDE his brain was mush when he had his NDE. If anyone would understand what a hallucination is, it's surely a neuroscientist. Especially one who had the experience.

Here's a summary of the peer-reviewed article - https://neurosciencenews.com/perception-near-death-20335/

Definitely. You did all that to make me feel better? Thanks.

Don't you think it makes sense to distinguish between sensory experience that involves the operation of sensory organs that provide us with information about the world around us, and 'seeing things' in a sense that doesn't involve the operation of sensory organs? — wonderer1

I do make the distinction to argue that consciousness extends beyond the body.

Isn't it quite reasonable to be skeptical of such 'seeing things'? — wonderer1

Whether it's reasonable or not depends on what you think you know. I don't expect people to come to the same conclusion unless they've done more than a cursory study of the evidence. Many who claim to have studied the subject, haven't. I can determine this just by having a short conversation. It can be reasonable based on what you believe you know. Everyone's cash of knowledge is different, so not everyone will agree. Skepticism has its place in philosophy as long as it's not too radical (global).

What does sensory experience have to do with NDEs? Do you think that people 'seeing' things when their brain is in a very abnormal state is a matter of light striking their retinas, nerve impulses propagating up their optic nerves, and their occipital lobes forming images that are a function of the pattern of light striking the retina? — wonderer1

The point is that relying on testimonial evidence is part of our epistemological system, and if you disagree with the testimony you have to give good reasons why the testimony of millions of people in various contexts and with various worldviews is unreliable.

Sensory experience has everything to do with NDEs because people claim that they're seeing, hearing, etc. while being out of their bodies. They claim that their sensory experiences are expanded beyond the body, and in my research, this is corroborated by doctors, nurses, friends, and family members who were there.

↪Sam26 Thank you. :yawn: — 180 Proof

Your welcome. You have a tendency to make statements without good arguments, and you accuse me of fallacious thinking without understanding the fallacies, and without understanding the epistemological points. Anyone can accuse someone of fallacious thinking without making a good argument to support it. Your tendency is to make pronouncements as though they're true by fiat.

The first paragraph in your post, sir, is riddled with special pleading, appeal to incredulity & appeal to popularity, and also jejune folk psychology. C'mon, how about some philosophizing sans the fallacies & pseudo-science — 180 Proof

To quote my first paragraph again...

Most of what people tell us about their sensory experiences is trustworthy. If this wasn’t the case we would be reduced to silence. This doesn’t mean that we just accept everything people say, it just means that most of what people relay to us is reliable; and since it’s generally reliable along with our sensory experiences it’s a genuine epistemological category along with other ways of acquiring knowledge. This way of knowing is much more pervasive than even science. It doesn’t have the glamour of science or the creative power of science, at least seemingly so, but its power in our lives is undeniable. — Sam26

To think that these remarks are fallacious is mystifying to me. Most philosophers would probably agree that the first sentence is true, i.e., if it wasn't true much of what we believe through sensory experience would fall apart including many if not all scientific experimentation. Moreover, much of what we know is validated through sensory experience. For example, "How do you know the orange juice is sweet?" - because I tasted it. There are endless examples of sensory experience being a valid way of knowing. So, there is no fallacy here. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of this conclusion.

My second sentence, viz., "This doesn’t mean that we just accept everything people say, it just means that most of what people relay to us is reliable; and since it’s generally reliable along with our sensory experiences it’s a genuine epistemological category along with other ways of acquiring knowledge." Is simply saying that testimonial evidence is a legitimate epistemological category. How this is fallacious is beyond me. It would be like saying in a court of law that all testimonial evidence (strong testimonial evidence) is fallacious. Who would make such a silly statement, and who would claim it's fallacious? Apparently @180 Proof thinks so.

My point in the previous paragraph is simply to point out that there are several ways of using the word know that are epistemological. The following is a list, not exhaustive, but they are the most common uses of know.

1) Inference, argument, proof
2) Sensory experience
3) Testimony
4) Linguistic Training (correct public usage of words)
5) Pure reason or pure logic (X or not X - it's true due to it's logical structure)

All of these are valid ways of knowing, some are stronger than others, but nonetheless they are valid and certainly not fallacious. Where does science fall into the epistemological list? Science uses most of these if not all when putting forth a theory based on experimentation. They often make observations. For example, the 1919 solar eclipse, conducted by Eddington, validated Einstein's general theory of relativity. Sensory observation was a key component of the validation of Einstein's theory. Again, nothing fallacious here.

My final sentence, "This way of knowing is much more pervasive than even science. It doesn’t have the glamour of science or the creative power of science, at least seemingly so, but its power in our lives is undeniable." All this means is that epistemology goes beyond just science. In fact, most of what we know is through the testimony of others. This obviously includes science, but is much more than just science. My argument in this thread depends on testimony, sensory experience, and logic (inductive inference). That said there is also some scientific data that supports the argument, but my argument doesn't rely on science because there is no need to make the inference based on science. Why? Because much of consciousness is beyond the scope of what is known in much of science. So, I would agree with Chalmers in that the hard problem remains, even though we would disagree on how the answers to the hard problem would work themselves out.

My point in this post is to demonstrate that there were no fallacies that I'm aware of in the first paragraph, that seems clear. @180 Proof throws out these these kinds of statements as though he has a valid point, but nothing could be further from the truth. At least some people have put forth arguments.

I will make a philosophical point, in respect of the link you provided to the video ‘what creates consciousness?’ That point is that to understand what creates or gives rise to something, is to explain it in terms of something else. The issue with consciousness, is that you must first be a conscious agent to create or provide any kind of explanation. So in that sense, it’s extremely hard to avoid a non-question-begging account of consciousness (where ‘begging the question’ already assumes what the argument is setting out to prove.) In other words, any kind of reduction or explanation can only be offered by a conscious agent. We can’t, as it were, examine it from the outside, as an object to be explained, because we’re always already ‘inside’ it. — Wayfarer

Whether or not one's explanation of consciousness is question-begging depends on the argument. I would agree that we can't get outside of our particular view, but we are outside the consciousness of others, so in this sense, we can have an objective point of view. That said, we don't have a clue as to what causes consciousness, and I for one have never attempted to answer this question. I know that you are responding to the video, so I'm saying this as a point of clarification.

A materialist's view of consciousness is what is studied from the physicalist standpoint, viz, they're observing an objective view (looking at the brains of other humans or animals, etc) of the brain's activity, so there can be an objective point of view, and this isn't question-begging. I disagree with their conclusions, but it's not question-begging. So, we can be outside the consciousness of others, we aren't confined to our particular view. Also, others can and do look at the objective evidence and make inferences based on that evidence, which, again, is not question-begging.

The first paragraph in your post, sir, is riddled with special pleading, appeal to incredulity & appeal to popularity, and also jejune folk psychology. C'mon, how about some philosophizing sans the fallacies & pseudo-science. :roll: — 180 Proof

This is just nonsense. One wonders if you have ever studied logic. You keep appealing to logic, but you don't seem to understand the basics of logic. So, you can roll your eyes all you want it does nothing to support your contention. If anything, it does the opposite.

An interesting discussion between Bernard Carr & Bernardo Kastrup about consciousness and its relation to time. I find this an interesting topic in relation to my views of consciousness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR0etE_OfMY&t=3355s

Testimonial Evidence and Other Comments

Most of what people tell us about their sensory experiences is trustworthy. If this wasn’t the case we would be reduced to silence. This doesn’t mean that we just accept everything people say, it just means that most of what people relay to us is reliable; and since it’s generally reliable along with our sensory experiences it’s a genuine epistemological category along with other ways of acquiring knowledge. This way of knowing is much more pervasive than even science. It doesn’t have the glamour of science or the creative power of science, at least seemingly so, but its power in our lives is undeniable.

One can always point to counter-examples where large groups of people believed X and their belief or beliefs turned out to be false. However, this does nothing to the argument that testimonial evidence or our sensory experiences are generally reliable, which is the bedrock of NDE testimonials. If such examples diminished the effectiveness of the general reliability of such justifications, then it would also diminish sciences’ ability to be an effective way of justifying their beliefs or theories because science depends on testimony, sensory experience (observation), mathematics, and logic to validate many of their experiments. If you removed sensory experiences from science, it would collapse.

My approach is simple, in that I’m applying Occam’s Razor to the evidence, i.e., the simplest explanation is probably the best explanation. This is how we approach most testimonial evidence in our lives. This is not to say that science isn’t helpful because it is, but that science is by its very nature materialistic, although that is slowly changing. Moreover, the tools of most scientists are not conducive to the study of consciousness because consciousness in my estimation is not materialistic, and this nonmaterialistic aspect can be understood with a simple understanding of our subjective experiences.

The truth of the matter is that for many materialists no amount of evidence would convince them because they’re so entrenched in their beliefs. This is also true of religious ideology; no amount of counterevidence would dissuade them because they’re so dogmatically entrenched in their beliefs. Nothing seems to falsify such beliefs, which is mostly the result of dogmatism. Dogmatism in many cases is the enemy of truth.

NDEs have the same structure that any veridical experience would have, i.e., they all show slightly different variations that fit the general structure of any veridical experience. This in itself isn’t strong evidence that the experiences are veridical, but it adds to the overall picture that the experiences are veridical. In other words, it’s exactly what you would expect from veridical experiences. Whereas in a hallucination, for example, you wouldn’t find the consistency of experience, nor the corroborative aspects (objective components) that you find in NDEs/OBEs.

My epistemological point of view is that we rely too much on science as some be-all and end-all of knowledge and this just isn’t the case. Most might agree with this epistemological point of view and yet their responses betray their reliance on science as their go-to response. Science is just one more way of using logic, sensory experience, mathematics, and experimentation to answer questions about physical reality. This isn’t to say that science is not important or that we shouldn’t use scientific methods, it just means that science at this stage cannot explain, despite what some people are claiming in this thread, much of the testimonial evidence about OBEs. And if you read a broad range of the literature across the scientific spectrum there are many unanswered questions about the nature of consciousness. It’s not a solved question as some in here might think.

The only evidence and its strong evidence, for our subjective experiences is our collective subjective experiences, each of us has similar experiences albeit with slight variations. The slight variations are an important component of our individual conscious experiences, and they set us apart as individuals.

Most people would consider sufficiently reliable the testimony of 10 or 20 people on most everyday events and would consider the need for science to verify such evidence as ridiculous. Of course, this depends on what people are claiming in their testimony. If 10 or 20 people are claiming they saw Bigfoot I’d be a bit skeptical, you’re going to need a lot more evidence than that, and you’re going to need much more corroboration along with bodies, bones, or other material evidence. The point is that different claims need more or less evidence depending on how much goes against what we normally experience. In the case of OBEs, we have millions of accounts, in a variety of settings, with thousands being corroborated, and the memories are as consistent or stronger than memories of other veridical experiences. These facts suggest that ordinary everyday citizens can, based on a cursory study of the testimony, conclude that OBEs do happen. I say that it’s enough evidence for people to claim that they know OBEs happen. I would further say that if you’ve had the experience, it’s perfectly reasonable to conclude that the experience was veridical, i.e., that you know it’s veridical. Case in point Dr. Eban Alexander’s (neuroscientist) NDE given here:

Proof of Heaven: The Science Behind the Near-Death Experience & Consciousness w/ Dr. Eben Alexander ((https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Msu6_HVRzuI)

To dismiss Dr. Alexander’s testimony, which in itself is very convincing, is to ignore very powerful experiences, that at the very least should be considered and studied with an open mind.

Back a few posts I mentioned David Chalmers not as someone who supports my ideas, but as someone who isn’t as dogmatic about some of these issues as some of you seem to be. He’s surprisingly open-minded even though his conclusions are contrary to many of my conclusions. I enjoyed this recent talk about consciousness at the following link:

What Creates Consciousness? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06-iq-0yJNM&t=2001s

It seems quite clear that people who accept the testimonial evidence that what people see while having an OBE based on what they (doctors, nurses, friends, etc.) know happened is eminently reasonable. Cases, such as the one where a lady after having a heart attack describes what she saw while claiming to be outside her body, viz., a shoe on a ledge outside the hospital. A hospital staff member later verified that the shoe was where the lady said it was and even described the placement of the shoelace. The shoe was located in a spot that wasn’t easy to see by looking out a window. Now it would be easy to dismiss such accounts as anecdotal, but many of these accounts are easy to verify or corroborate. And if these accounts were rare, I would dismiss them too, but they are not rare. Of course, you can always point to a possible explanation that might account for such testimony, but that’s no reason to dismiss the account. Some believe that if you can explain how this could have happened via some other vehicle this somehow diminishes the hundreds of thousands of corroborated accounts. Moreover, because some explanation might explain how a person could see the shoe under such circumstances this doesn’t mean that that is the explanation. Yet people are so eager to dismiss such explanations that they’ll grab onto anything that looks like a possible explanation. The number and variety of such reports are much more compelling than some supposed theory that dismisses the testimony wholesale. The fact that something is possible (a possible reason or cause) is not a reason to believe it’s true. Many of the explanations that supposedly account for these OBEs have very little support when compared to what happened given the medical states of these people.

There is no doubt that neuroscience has made a lot of progress over the recent decades, but none of this progress definitively rebuts OBEs or that consciousness survives death. At best science can establish a correlation between the brain and consciousness but not causation. The hope is that we will eventually be able to establish a physical causal account of consciousness. This is the view of many neuroscientists. But to think that we already can give a definitive account of consciousness as materialistic is just false, it’s just one theory that some scientists and philosophers believe.

Another case is the case of Al Sullivan (Al Sullivan - Near death out of body experience. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-91QXXsyEc&list=PL5yFMykZj0Mz4nDtOMT-0LK9fM4R_7NNK) in which he describes what’s happening in the operating room and the unusual movements of the surgeon. The most reasonable explanation is that he was seeing what was happening from a vantage point outside his body. To dismiss the many thousands (actually millions) of these accounts by saying they’re anecdotal or they’re hallucinations, or it’s a lack of oxygen, or any speculative account besides what’s reported by those who were there is to ignore important data.

One final point, although I put a lot of stock into much of the testimony, there is growing evidence that about 10% (estimate, maybe more) of the testimony on YouTube is created for clicks and is not reliable. After studying NDEs and OBEs for many years I can usually spot those that are not reliable, but this is only the case because of the number of cases I studied before YouTube and other platforms were as ubiquitous as they are now.

The idea that we need to confirm our subjective experiences in controlled settings or they're not veridical is ridiculous on its face. Or, that we need something more than hundreds of thousands of corroborated (objective) reports is so irrational that only someone with a worldview that is set in cement would accept it.

I've seen that interview, but it's worth sharing. Thanks.

https://youtu.be/NVsBFOB7H44

You continue to demonstrate that you don't understand the nature of my argument so I'm not going to continue. For example, you continue to say that it's just subjective and when I point out that there has been objective corroboration from doctors, nurses, friends, and family members you just reject it. That's fine, but it's just not the case, and just a little study of the experiences will show that it's not the case. I don't need peer-reviewed studies to understand that there is objective corroboration.

That said, thanks for the responses.

You strike me as a thinker in earlier stages of development. This is not an insult to your intelligence. Good thinking for most people takes training. It takes years of work. You can never be satisfied, and I seek to improve in little ways every day. — Philosophim

I guess I have to defend my background in philosophy. If you had researched this forum, you would know that I’m not “…a thinker in earlier stages of development…” I’ve been studying philosophy for over 45 years, with a degree (B.A. in Philosophy). I’m quite familiar with symbolic logic and I know some modal logic which means that I know something about correct reasoning, including how to analyze arguments. In the last 20 years, I’ve spent much of my time studying epistemology, linguistic analysis, and Ludwig Wittgenstein’s later philosophy, especially his final notes called On Certainty. I consider my knowledge of philosophy to be at least the level of someone with a Master’s degree. I started working on my Master’s degree in 1982 but didn’t finish it.

One problem I see is that you are still stuck on how to correctly use inductive thinking. If you re-read, that's really my focus. Inductive thinking is by definition, not necessarily true. So even the best of inductive arguments is not considered a sound argument, but a supposition, or conjecture at best. Considering there are several competing conjectures that your inductive argument must address and overcome, its not in a good position. — Philosophim

Yes, I know that’s your focus, and anyone with a little background in logic knows that inductive reasoning is not necessarily true. Only the conclusions of good deductive arguments follow necessarily. Inductive reasoning is either strong or weak based on the evidence. Most of our reasoning, including science, is inductive. A word about sound arguments (soundness is a property of deductive arguments, it includes validity and the truth of the premises), in logic it’s used as a criterion to describe good deductive arguments, although the truth of the premises of an inductive argument is parallel to soundness in deductive arguments.

Second, you're assuming the argument that I'm trying to make instead of really understanding it. I want to re-emphasize again, that I am not questioning whether people experience NDE's or OBEs. If you re-read, you seem to want to re-argue their realness when I've already long accepted that they're real. My point is that a personal experience does not mean strong or conclusive evidence about objective reality. — Philosophim

I tried to address this in another post, but you seem to ignore what I’m saying. You say the experiences are real, but there are two senses of real involved in my argument. First, real could mean that they are real in the sense that any experience is real, including hallucinations, dreams, delusions, etc. However, I use the word veridical as opposed to real because real isn’t as precise. Most researchers who talk about NDEs, whether for or against, want to answer the question, “Are NDEs veridical?” This is the question at hand.

Now, does that mean that when we dream our consciousness actually travels to another realm where we can fly? No. Its just a common brain activity while we sleep. Personal experience is not evidence of objective reality. Personal experience is out interpretation of objective reality. And just because we interpret reality a certain way, it does not mean it is a certain way. Ever seen an optical illusion? That's our interpretation ability going overdrive, the illusion is not actually happening in reality apart from ourselves. — Philosophim

Your use of real is that the experiences are not veridical (not part of objective reality), i.e., that they are similar to dreams or hallucinations which are real experiences but not veridical. I’ve assumed all along that this is what you probably meant. Also, when I answer your points, I’m trying to address not only you but others who are reading this thread, which is why I point this out.

My emphasis is not on 'science', but deduction and objective testing. Science is a good go to, because articles are peer reviewed. Meaning they must hold to high standards from the rest of the community, and are always open to having their research examined and questioned. We want to believe in the power of induction and personal experience, and while it can be useful in many instances, it also has many known flaws. — Philosophim

You don’t seem to understand that most arguments are inductive (including science), not deductive. Moreover, you have never given a deductive argument. You also dismiss the power of inductive reasoning by saying it has many known flaws. I’m not sure what you mean by “known flaws” apart from it doesn’t give us absolute knowledge. Obviously, weak inductive arguments are flawed because they lack the kind of strength that would give us good reasons to believe their conclusions. Strong inductive reasoning is not flawed in terms of the strength of its conclusion. Most of science is inductive and the paper you cited is also inductive. You don’t seem to have a good background in logic because you fail to give inductive reasoning its proper place in the reasoning process, you, at the very least diminish its power. It is quite obvious that what you said about yourself in terms of dabbling in philosophy is true, and it shows. Philosophy for me is quite beyond being a hobby or something I dabble in.

So even the best of inductive arguments is not considered a sound argument, but a supposition, or conjecture at best. — Philosophim

This is just silly. It doesn’t comport with just a basic understanding of logic. Moreover, again, soundness is a property of deductive arguments because it means that the argument is valid and the premises are true. For someone to say, “You strike me as a thinker in earlier stages of development,” is laughable given these comments on logic.

So your argument has several problems it needs to solve. How do you reconcile the fact that we can duplicate NDEs in neurology and oxygen deprivation scenarios? How do you reconcile the fact that no OBE has ever been shown to see something that was placed outside of their bodies field of view during the time in which the NDE should be occurring? There are real problems that if not solved, cut the inductive argument that consciousness survives our death into pieces. — Philosophim

Just because we can duplicate NDEs, it doesn’t follow that NDEs are not objectively real. It just means we know what things can trigger similar aspects of the NDE. It also just means that the brain plays a role in consciousness as we know it. It doesn’t follow that duplicating NDEs demonstrates that consciousness is solely a construct of the brain.

For someone who claims to have studied NDEs and who continues to say things like, “How do you reconcile the fact that no OBE has ever been shown to see something that was placed outside of their bodies field of view during the time in which the NDE should be occurring?” - is completely mystifying to me. There have been many corroborative NDE accounts of people seeing and hearing things that are nowhere near their bodies. Just a cursory study of NDEs should dispel this belief. You can continue to deny that this is the case, but there are just too many accounts that contradict this belief. People have heard conversations in other parts of the hospital, have heard and seen things happening many miles from where their body is located, and have seen people in their NDE that they didn’t know were dead, this happens all the time.

At least you tried to give an argument, I’ll give you credit for that, but you haven’t diminished the strength of my argument one iota. Your arguments are very weak, and your conclusions don’t follow from the facts of NDEs. The truth of the premises of my argument stands based on the following:

The fourth criterion is the 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 gives credence and credibility to the accounts. One example of corroboration is given in Pam's NDE out of Atlanta, GA, which can be seen on YouTube, although the video is old.

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, that is, from outside one's body, and hearing and seeing what is happening around their bodies.
2) Having intense feelings of being loved, intense feelings of peace, and the absence of pain.
3) Seeing a light or tunnel in the distance and feeling that one is being drawn to the light, or moving 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 with.
6) Heightened sensory experiences, namely, feeling that one is having an ultra-real experience, as opposed to a dream or a hallucination. This happens even when there is no measurable brain activity.
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, 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 we are part of one consciousness.
13) Memories of who they 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 as quickly as they think of the question.
15) Understanding that ultimately we cannot be harmed and that everything is perfect as it is.
16) That we are eternal beings simply entering into one of many realities. We are simply higher beings who choose to have a human experience. Ultimately, we are not human, being human is just a temporary experience. Our humanity ends when we die, then we assume our original form.

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

It sounds like you don't have a lot of time left. I've been harsh on the subject material, but not on you.
You may not see it as a gift, but really, it is. You will die. I will die. And that will be it. So don't waste your time. Fill it with family, friends, loved ones. Explore, fulfill your last curiosities, and do the things you've always wanted to do. Because after its over, its done. That's why we come here. To really think about things and sift the lies, illusions, and artificial hopes from reality. A life lived real is a really lived life. Good luck and enjoy your time. — Philosophim

This is a bit funny and a bit condescending, but I got a laugh out of it so that’s good. The illness I alluded to is something I’ve had all my life, but it’s not like I’m on my deathbed. Of course, turning 74 in September does mean my life is getting shorter and shorter. I’m not afraid of death, and to give me advice on living and dying is quite condescending as if I don’t understand what’s important. I guess I need advice since I don’t think about such things (ha-ha). You probably mean well, so I don’t take offense.

I find it curious that some people think that people who believe there is an afterlife are somehow afraid that their existence is coming to an end, so we grasp at straws (beliefs) to comfort ourselves. We can always go back and forth on the psychological factors contributing to our beliefs, but none of us escape this problem. The psychological reasons/causes for what we all believe are very strong, often overriding what’s logical. I considered myself a Christian for many years and what can be a more powerful belief than thinking you’re a child of God going to heaven and escaping hell? I rejected the belief (not all the beliefs, but the resurrection, that Christ was God, hell, demons, etc.) after reconsidering the evidence. That means that many of the people in my family, friends, and others would look at me in quite a different way. I’ve never been afraid to go against the grain, and such is the case with my beliefs in the afterlife. I would say that I don’t care what others think, but that’s not quite true, I do care what some people think, but the point is that it’s difficult to buck any system of beliefs that have dominated one’s life for years. The point of saying this is that my life belies the idea that I would hold to such beliefs for what you seem to suggest.

The only thing that matters to me is the evidence or good reasons that support my argument, not some fear of ceasing to exist, fear of hell, or some other fear. That said, I’m not superhuman, of course I have certain fears. For example, I don’t want to die in agony or some such thing, but I think the actual point of death (that moment) is more peaceful than most people think. And if we cease to exist after the death of the body, so be it, it won’t matter, will it? Of course, I don’t believe that to be the case, in fact, I know it’s not the case.

Finally, your epistemology relies too heavily on the power of science to explain, as if epistemological considerations of science are paramount to knowing something is the case. However, much of what we know is through everyday testimonial evidence, which is why I think this argument is so powerful. We can go back and forth, no it’s not, yes it is, but I think my argument continues to stand as strong evidence for an afterlife.

That said, I appreciate the responses.

First, just a word about the concept of death, this concept is used in a variety of contexts and it’s not important to my argument because NDEs can and have happened when people are not experiencing a life-threatening situation. However, most do happen in life-threatening situations. That said, most of the time when I refer to death I’m referring to clinical death, viz, when a doctor would pronounce someone dead.

It’s the experience itself, the claim that people have had an OBE, and their experiences while having an OBE, which is the central point of my argument. It’s what people see during their NDE that supports their belief that they had an OBE. What constitutes an NDE are certain common characteristics laid out in the Greyson scale in the following link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271857657_The_Near-Death_Experience_Scale (Citation: Greyson, B. (2007). The near-death experience as a focus of clinical attention. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 195(10), 883-890.)

There have also been comparative studies done by Dr. Parnia (professor of Medicine at the NYU Langone Medical Center). This study (“Aware—AWAreness during Resuscitation—A Prospective study” published in Resuscitation.) used the Greyson scale as a guide to compare the experiences of cardiac arrest survivors and whether they were genuine NDEs as opposed to hallucinations or dream-like experiences.

Other studies, viz., by Thonnard et al. (2013) source “Characteristics of NDE memories as compared to real or imagined NDEs” published in PLoS ONE explored the neurological basis of NDEs and also used the Greyson scale to determine if the memories were more consistent with real memories or with the memories of imagined events.

So, the Greyson scale has been used as a reliable source for many studies to determine between genuine NDEs and other phenomena.

Along with the Greyson scale, there have been a variety of other studies that show the common characteristics of NDEs. These studies include, but are not limited to the following:

1) Noyes and Slymen’s Near-Death Experience Scale (Russell Noyes and Donald Slymen)
2) Ring’s Weighted Core Experience Index (Kenneth Ring)
3) Zaleski’s Narrative Analysis (Carol Zasleski)
4) Moody’s Common Elements of NDEs (Raymond Moody)
5) Kellehear’s Cross-Cultural Studies (Allan Kellehear)


Besides the common characteristic studies that have been done from a variety of sources, other studies confirm the objective nature of NDEs and hence the veridical nature of these experiences. Many of these individuals were in a state where normal perceptions should have been impossible or very difficult to explain.

Are you understanding my points? I never denied people don't have these experiences. I denied that they logically lead to a conclusion that there was life after death, both rationally, and do not hold inductively when compared to other stronger inductive arguments that show our consciousness does not live on after death. — Philosophim

The question is, “Do you understand my points?” If people are having these experiences, i.e., they are veridical, then my conclusion follows based on the numbers, variety, and truth of testimonials (corroborative evidence and consistency of reports). I used the word veridical for a reason, because if you’re acknowledging that the experiences are real (veridical), then how can you deny the reports? Unless you’re simply saying that the experiences are real but not veridical. If you’re saying that they are veridical but that they can be explained in another way, then you haven’t given good reasons to suppose that’s the case. The paper you cited doesn’t take into account much of the research that has been done and oversimplifies the NDE research. As I said, I’ve been studying these accounts for many years and have read many of the counterarguments, most try to explain the memory reports in very dubious ways, which I and many others have found wanting. Many of the memory counterarguments are only speculating about how these memories might have occurred.

To argue that my argument doesn’t “…logically lead to [my] conclusion…” you have to demonstrate that the premises aren’t true, and you’ve failed miserably at that. At best your inductive arguments are weak, even the paper you cited is weak. Moreover, you seem to ignore the many studies that have been done to support the truth of my premises. We can go back and forth about the research, but I don’t think it will solve whose research is better, which is why I go back to the testimonial reports. For most people, after listening to many reports, and I have read and listened to more than 5000 reports, they speak for themselves. Any normal person after hearing corroborative and consistent testimonial evidence is going to concede to the veridical nature of the reports which leads to the conclusion (whether you do or not, it doesn’t matter) that consciousness is not confined to the brain, and the contention that consciousness is not limited to the body.

Another important point is the nature of consciousness itself, i.e., can consciousness be explained by simply appealing to brain functions? The answer for me at least, and for many other scientists and philosophers, is no. I like many of the points David Chalmers raises in his article The Puzzle of Consciousness in which he distinguishes between understanding many of the cognitive functions, such as perception, memory, and learning (the easy problem of consciousness), which much can be explained through science; and the problem of trying to address our subjective experiences (the hard problem of consciousness), viz., what it’s like to be conscious. It’s not just awareness but that we are aware of being aware (my point).

In Nagel’s 1974 paper, What Is It Like to Be a Bat Nagel also explores subjective experiences and the nature of consciousness. He concludes that consciousness has an irreducible aspect, and I agree based on my studies which go beyond what I’ve given in this thread. He further concludes that the physicalist approach to consciousness is not sufficient to address our subjective experiences and that we need a fundamentally new approach to concepts and methods. This paper agrees with many of Chalmers' points.

Chalmers goes on to explain that there is a gap between what we can understand and explain via physical science and trying to explain our subjective experiences. This is why some argue that our subjective experiences are an illusion (my point not Chalmers), because of the difficulty in explaining subjective experience. Chalmers concludes that although we have made significant progress in our understanding of the easy problem of consciousness, the hard problem remains. It’s a profound mystery. I agree and would point out that although I believe it can be logically demonstrated that consciousness is not a brain function, we are still at a loss to explain the nature of consciousness. I speculate that consciousness is the creative force behind the universe and that consciousness resides in a place where the laws of consciousness and creation are much different from the laws of this universe.

Chalmers proposes that there are three possible ways to solve the hard problem of consciousness. First is the idea that even if we don’t have all the answers presently, sometime in the future science will be able to explain consciousness. This is the optimistic view of reductionism, given enough time the problem will be solved. Chalmers also points out a second way which he refers to as mysterianism, which is a form of materialism or physicalism. This is the idea that consciousness is a physical process, but we will never understand it. It’s a mystery. And third is dualism, which just distinguishes, basically, between the mental and the physical, and the mental encompasses consciousness. Chalmers also makes the point that all of the work in neuroscience only addresses the easy problem of consciousness. The hard problem of consciousness is barely addressed, if at all. Most research doesn’t even come close to addressing the hard problem, and this should at least give you pause about what can be said about the point of origin of consciousness. To claim that we know how consciousness arises is simply false, we’re not even close to answering this question.

I believe that NDEs do show that consciousness is not confined to the brain, but this doesn’t address the problem of what is consciousness. Although I believe consciousness is the source of this reality (our observable universe), I don’t believe we have a clue about the nature of consciousness or its source, if there is a source.

Although this post doesn’t address every question or challenge it gives more information to support my conclusions and raises other considerations.

I was a little surprised to find you had not addressed my response to you. I linked you a nice article and addressed your points. To ignore someone who does this and repeat what you spoke about earlier is avoidance, and an indicator that you don't have the answers to the previous points. — Philosophim

First of all, my health and age have affected my responses. So, your conclusion that I'm avoiding you and don't have answers to your posts is incorrect. There's nothing that you've posted that's difficult to answer, and much of what you've posted shows a lack of understanding of the subject of NDEs, even the paper you posted can be addressed, although it would take more time.

he three epistemological elements of my argument include logic, sensory experience, and testimonial evidence. These three ways of acquiring knowledge are sufficient in themselves to make a reasonable conclusion that consciousness survives death.
— Sam26

No, they are not.

1. Logic indicates you are making an induction, not a reasonable conclusion. Logic also indicates per the article that I linked, that the existence of NDE's does not mean that there was evidence of actual death at the time the person had the vision/dream. — Philosophim

First, I've given the criteria of a good inductive argument, and based on those criteria the inductive conclusion is overwhelmingly reasonable. (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/912262)

There is a reason why these experiences are called Near-Death and not death unless we're talking about clinical death, which is an accepted term (clinical death) in the medical community. People can continue to say that it's not death, and that's fine, but the experiences they're having coupled with the corroboration give power to their experiences. Not all NDEs happen when people are near death, some have happened quite spontaneously.

2. Sensory experience has been disproven by the fact people can sink in and out of consciousness in anesthesia, and it has not been conclusively pin pointed when exactly a person had a NDE. It is not that NDE's do not happen, its that there's no indicator they are actual experiences after brain death. To conclude there is consciousness after death, one must have an example of consciousness after actual death and a return to life. — Philosophim

Just because people can sink in and out of consciousness when anesthetized doesn't invalidate the experience. There have been plenty of NDEs that have happened when there is no measurable brain activity (Pam's e.g. is one). There have also been experiences where people have described what they are seeing on various machines (e.g. in an operating room) at particular times during their experience, so it's fairly easy to know based on what they're seeing that it happened at T1 or T2.

I don't know about you, but if someone tells me that they see X during their experience and it's corroborated by doctors, nurses, staff, and family members, then that's a veridical experience. You can keep denying what millions of people are saying because you're entrenched in a materialistic worldview, but it won't change the facts. Most people generally know the difference between a real (veridical) experience and one that is not. If this wasn't so we couldn't generally rely on our sensory experiences.

Your responses demonstrate that you haven't studied these experiences, and your responses clearly show that. I've been researching this subject for about 17 years and have heard most of the counterarguments and they are some of the weakest counterarguments I've ever heard.

3. You only conclude a bias of testimonial evidence. You do not include the majority of cases in which people do not have NDE's when in similar near death experiences. You do not include the nightmares, or the visions of things that do not exist. You cherry pick nice and positive experiences then say, "They're all like that." They are all not. When taken as a whole, NDE's are very much like dreams and minimal conscious processing. — Philosophim

I don't know of any other testimonial evidence that would counter NDEs. Many people who are in a similar condition don't have an NDE but that hardly invalidates all the millions of people who have had the experience. That's just the nature of our experiences, some people who have similar experiences give different reports but that doesn't invalidate all other reports.

I don't cherry-pick anything, I've examined many thousands of reports that have been given from around the world and have concluded that consciousness survives death. Again, I'm not aware of NDEs that don't generally confirm an OBE, so I don't know what you're referring to.

Many NDEs haven't been studied so I pick the ones that have been studied, but that's not cherry-picking, and here's the rub, the ones that have been studied confirm what others have been saying about their experience. Any examination of testimonial evidence would do the same. So, your cherry-picking allegation is weak, to say the least.

This is all I'm going to respond to because I've addressed most of the other points you've made in other parts of the thread. What seems strange to me is that you seem to ignore so many other studies and peer-reviewed material, which at least acknowledges that many of these questions are open to many scientists (open for them, not for me). You seem to think it's an open-and-shut case. Nonsense.

I stand by my conclusion that consciousness survives death. I'll go so far as to say that consciousness is the basis for all reality and that what we are here (being human) is not our essential nature. I'll add a further point, i.e., we are here having a human experience, but it's temporary.

Sorry I can't respond to everything or everybody, I just don't have the energy nor the inclination. I'll respond and post from time to time but that's about it. Sometimes I get spurts of energy and will respond more often but that doesn't happen much.

Thanks for the effort @Philosophim

An interesting shared NDE.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-jqDHMQp_s

My view of epistemology is that there are several ways of acquiring knowledge that aren’t dependent on a scientific approach (experimentation, data collection, and peer-reviewed papers). This isn’t to say that there isn’t scientific research into the subject of NDEs, or that the scientific approach isn’t helpful. My idea is to keep this argument as simple as possible and still maintain a strong inductive argument that most people can follow. The three epistemological elements of my argument include logic, sensory experience, and testimonial evidence. These three ways of acquiring knowledge are sufficient in themselves to make a reasonable conclusion that consciousness survives death. Moreover, this epistemological point of view is the same view that most of us take in our everyday lives, and it’s quite reliable apart from science. Again, I believe that the everyday person who isn’t familiar with a lot of scientific jargon or even philosophical jargon can make the reasonable inference that we survive death. By reasonable, I mean that the evidence is strong enough to claim that one knows the conclusion is true and justified.

I’m not claiming that our knowledge in this case is known with absolute certainty, just as most of our knowledge isn’t known with absolute certainty. I’m claiming that the evidence is known with a high degree of certainty. I understand that most of you know this, but some think that a belief/conclusion is only knowledge if it follows necessarily. This is false.

I have already given the inductive argument so there is no need to give it again. Here is the link https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/912262 . This is the logic behind the argument.

Testimonial evidence can be quite weak, but in certain cases, it can be quite strong. I’m claiming that the testimonial evidence is very strong based on the variety of sources from around the world, the relative consistency of the sources, and the corroborative evidence that adds an objective component to the testimonial evidence. This objective component also dispels the notion that the experience is a hallucination, delusion, dream, lack of oxygen, etc.

Whether a person is defined as dead or not doesn’t diminish the strength of the argument. Why? Because it’s the out-of-body experience and the sensory experiences that people have that suggest that consciousness is not confined to the brain. And to think that someone can point to some brain activity to show that it’s the brain that creates consciousness is similar to pointing to a component in a radio to show that what you’re listening to is confined to the radio. It doesn't follow.

The experiences of NDErs seeing deceased relatives and people that they didn’t know were dead lends credence to the conclusion that consciousness survives death. This doesn’t even include deathbed visions where people see their loved ones come to them just before death. I don’t include these in my argument because they are so subjective, but when combined with NDEs they seem to support the idea that consciousness continues far beyond this life.

Another important point is that many of the people who have NDEs report that their experience is not diminished, which is what you might expect with a brain that isn’t getting enough oxygen or blood, in fact, it is heightened. By heightened I mean their sensory experiences are much sharper, they see colors that they haven’t seen before, and their vision is reported to be expanded (360-degree vision) in many cases. This reality seems dreamlike by comparison to what they see when out of their body. In many cases, people claim that this reality is a dumbed-down version of that reality. You would think that dying brains would have less sensory acuity than a normal brain, not more.

Finally, I want to add that I don't think that any religion fully captures the idea of life after death, so this isn't about any religious idea or doctrine. I'm certainly not religious, i.e., I don't subscribe to any religious ideology. However, there is some overlap.

No. It is a cold and unerring fact. First, we can cite the complete lack of objective evidence. There has never been any signs of life after something has died. Second, we can cite the objective evidence of how the brain functions, and how it ties to people's personalities and ability to function in the world. Years of drug studies and brain surgery have demonstrated that you are your brain. There is no other alternative. — Philosophim

First, what you're claiming is not an unerring fact. Just because someone claims something is factual doesn't make it so. And your claim that there is no objective evidence shows just how little you know of the subject. Many thousands of NDE testimonials have been corroborated by doctors, nurses, friends, and family. If someone claims to see something at T1 and others corroborate that claim, then it's objective testimonial evidence, period.

Years of drug studies and brain surgery have demonstrated that you are your brain. There is no other alternative. — Philosophim

There is no other alternative, what a silly statement, and an arrogant one too. Many scientists dispute this. In any case, my argument stands.

Incorrect. Cite me a case in which a person had complete brain death and I'll recant. — Philosophim

I'll ask you one more time, what do you mean by complete brain death? I never use any such terms. When I speak of death, I mean clinical death, i.e., no measurable brain activity, no heartbeat, and no breathing. Are you disputing that there are any NDEs that occur when a person is pronounced clinically dead? If you want an e.g. of someone who had an NDE when there was no measurable brain activity then I would give the example of Pam's NDE out of Atlanta, GA

They have also been reported with the blood completely drained from their brains.
— Sam26

This is again, impossible. To completely drain the blood from a brain you would have to completely drain the blood from the body. Again, cite this case please. — Philosophim

This is a well documented case, here is one of many videos on this NDE.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNbdUEqDB-k

I'm not sure what you mean by fully brain-dead. People have had these experiences when there is no measurable brain activity. They have also been reported with the blood completely drained from their brain. Besides what matters are their reports while claiming to be outside their bodies, and that these reports have been corroborated thousands and thousands of times which adds an objective component to the testimonials.

I never referred to these experiences as after-death experiences, those are your words, not mine.

To say that "...there is no evidence of life after death" is just an expression of an opinion. I've given a well-structured inductive argument that supports my conclusion.

How can I know that the experience that I'm having (or remember having) is a near death experience? — jkop

If you had an NDE it wouldn't be something that easily forgotten. Moreover, you would know based on what others have reported and comparing your experience with theirs.

Just listen to this NDE, it may answer your questions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZfaPCwjguk

Could millions be liars and or delusional and or themselves persuaded before its first conversion into data? Maybe, but assume not. Could you say (and I haven't looked into this) the same about those who claim to be born again, saved by the holy spirit (speaking in tongues, muscle spasms, new outlook etc) or those who claim Satori etc? Or visitations/alien viewings? — ENOAH

Of course it's not just the numbers, as I've said, it's all the criteria that make a strong inductive argument. So, the numbers are impressive, but numbers don't give us the truth or the facts. You have to look at the testimonial evidence as a whole which leads to a strong conclusion.

I don't put much stock in religious belief, there is some overlap, but overall, the evidence for an afterlife based on NDEs is overwhelming. The evidence for some religious belief is very subjective and flimsy. NDEs give a much better picture of the afterlife than any religious view and with stronger testimonial evidence.

What if there might be other explanations for the consistencies besides that the claims are factual? — ENOAH

I never said that NDEs are consistent because they are factual. I said that the fact that NDEs are generally consistent gives support to the truth of the testimonials.

I take the testimonials at face value unless there are good reasons not to. I would suggest re-reading that post so that you fully understand the logic.

Thanks for the compliment, and the reply.

This is an updated version of the argument with some editing and added statements for clarity. This was copied from my posts in Quora.

This is the argument I put forth in my thread Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body, in The Philosophy Forum under the name Sam26. I have also talked about this argument in other philosophy forums. I say this to allay questions of plagiarism. I have been posting on this subject for at least 12-15 years across many platforms.

My claim is that there is sufficient testimonial evidence to reasonably conclude that consciousness survives (that we survive, albeit in another form) the death of the body. So, I am making the claim that I know the conclusion of my argument is true. And, although I believe I could make other claims (and I will in later posts) based on the evidence, that is, claims of knowledge (by knowledge I mean justified true belief), I am limiting the scope of the conclusion in this initial post to keep confusion to a minimum. By limited, I mean I am not trying to give evidence of a God, heaven, that we are eternal beings, or any other spiritual or religious idea or doctrine; nor am I trying to give evidence of many of the other claims people are making while having such an experience. Although, as I have said, I do believe there is strong evidence to support other conclusions, and these conclusions have varying degrees of certainty, just as many of our everyday conclusions have varying degrees of certainty (subjective as well as objective certainty).

Preliminaries:

The first question is, what makes a strong inductive argument? The criteria for a good inductive argument are much different from the criteria for a good deductive argument. The criteria of a good inductive argument are as follows:

(1) number
(2) variety
(3) scope of the conclusion
(4) truth of the premises
(5) cogency

First, number. It seems rather obvious that if you have a greater number of testimonials that say something happened, then the stronger the argument. This does not mean that the conclusion relies solely on numbers because numbers in themselves are not always sufficient. It is important to the understanding of this argument that all of the criteria work together to strengthen the conclusion.

Second, variety. The greater the variety of cases cited the stronger the conclusion. When examining the conclusion of an inductive argument, the conclusion is either strong or weak, which is much different from a good deductive argument, where the conclusion follows with absolute necessity if it is sound (soundness means the deductive argument is both valid and the premises are true). The difference is what is probably or likely the case (inductive arguments), versus what necessarily follows (deductive arguments). A common misconception among some people is that if we do not know with absolute certainty then we do not know, but this is an error. Most of what we know is based on inductive reasoning, including many of the claims of science. Most of it is probability-based, so it is not known with absolute certainty, it is known with a high degree of certainty. So, when I use the phrase “I know..” in reference to the conclusion of this argument, I am referring to what is known based on what is probably the case; and since probability varies significantly I should say that I believe that the conclusion follows with a very high degree of probability based on the strength of the evidence.

Third, the scope of the conclusion. This has already been covered briefly in the opening paragraph (I'm referring to an opening paragraph in my Quora space.), it means that the less the conclusion claims the stronger the argument. In other words, conclusions that are broad in scope are much harder to defend. A conclusion that is limited in scope is easier to defend. The reason is that conclusions that are too broad require much more evidence than conclusions that are limited in their scope.

Fourth, truth of the premises. This means that the premises must be true, which by the way, is the same criteria that make a good deductive argument, that is, a good deductive argument must be sound (soundness has to do with whether the deductive argument is valid, plus the premises must be true).

(a) Since we are dealing with testimonial evidence, to know if the testimonial evidence is true, we first need corroboration, that is, we need an objective way to verify the testimonial evidence. This helps to establish the truth of the claims or the truth of the premises. Moreover, it helps add an objective way of verifying subjective experiences. There is both a subjective and objective component to this argument. The objective component helps to determine the objective facts of the experiences.

(b) Another important factor in determining the truth of testimonial evidence is firsthand testimony, as opposed to hearsay or secondhand testimony. Firsthand testimony is stronger than hearsay or second-hand testimony, all things being equal. This is an important component of all testimonial evidence and should be carefully considered when examining any kind of testimonial evidence.

(c) Consistency of the reports is another important criterion in terms of getting to the truth. However, testimonial evidence does not have to be perfectly consistent to be credible. When dealing with a large number of reports you will inevitably find some inconsistency. So, inconsistency itself is not enough to rule out the reports unless the inconsistency is widespread, and of such a number, that it affects the quality and number of consistent reports. So, although consistency is important, it must be looked at in terms of the overall picture. We often find inconsistent testimonial reports but that does not mean that all of the reports should be dismissed, it just means that our testimonial evidence should be based on those reports that are consistent.

Fifth is cogency. You rarely hear this criterion, but it is very important in terms of the effectiveness of the argument. There is a sense where any argument's (deductive or inductive) effectiveness is going to be based on whether the person to whom the argument is given, knows the premises are true. For example, if I give the following argument:

The base of a souffle is a roux.
This salmon dish is a souffle.
Hence, the base of this salmon dish is a roux (Dr. Byron I. Bitar, Classical Christian Wisdom, p. 70).

If you do not know what a souffle or a roux is, then you do not know if the premises are true, so how would you know if the conclusion is true? You may know that the argument is valid based on its form, but you would not know if the premises are true. So, you would not know if it is sound. For any argument to be effective, you have to know if the premises are true; and since knowledge varies from person to person, an argument's effectiveness is going to vary from person to person.

Now we have given some of the preliminaries, we will proceed to the argument itself.

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 certainty. As such, one can claim to know the conclusion is true. This argument makes such a claim.

Each of the aforementioned criteria serves to strengthen the testimonial evidence. All of the criteria in the previous paragraphs work hand-in-hand to strengthen the conclusion, and the 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, namely, 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 millions of people. So, the number of accounts of NDEs is very high, much higher than what we would normally need to add to the strength of the 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 criterion of good testimonial evidence is variety, that is, 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, and 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, that is, without being near death.

The third criterion is the 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 criterion is the 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 gives credence and credibility to the accounts. One example of corroboration is given in Pam's NDE out of Atlanta, GA, which can be seen on YouTube, although the video is old.

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, that is, from outside one's body, and hearing and seeing what is happening around their bodies.
2) Having intense feelings of being loved, intense feelings of peace, and the absence of pain.
3) Seeing a light or tunnel in the distance and feeling that one is being drawn to the light, or moving 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 with.
6) Heightened sensory experiences, namely, feeling that one is having an ultra-real experience, as opposed to a dream or a hallucination. This happens even when there is no measurable brain activity.
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, 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 we are part of one consciousness.
13) Memories of who they 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 as quickly as they think of the question.
15) Understanding that ultimately we cannot be harmed and that everything is perfect as it is.
16) That we are eternal beings simply entering into one of many realities. We are simply higher beings that choose to have a human experience. Ultimately, we are not human, being human is just a temporary experience. Our humanity ends when we die, then we assume our original form.

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

The fifth criterion is the 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 claims 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 a strong inductive argument.

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.

Even if someone had the perfect proof it wouldn't change a thing. Why? Because many of the reasons or causes for believing or not believing in God have nothing to do with logic. Most of our beliefs are the result of culture, peer pressure, psychological predispositions, and a host of other reasons or causes. So, again, no proof, even if perfect would change a thing. Most people would still reject it. It's not a given that people would recognize good logic even if they saw it, and this is true even for people who have studied logic. Remember that most of the premises in an argument can be twisted this or that way. The arguments over the concepts alone can go on for years, and they have.

That said, I do think there are answers to some of these questions, but they raise other questions more difficult to answer.

I'm not a fan of spending too much time on secondary sources. I think that for the most part, they lead us astray, not always of course. Most of my time is spent reading primary source material even though Witt's OC is incomplete. He's written enough prior material to give us a good idea of his thinking. And even the ideas I've tried to expand have some connection to passages in OC. I think OC is the most lucid of all Witt's writings, so I try to take the passages in OC at face value without trying to overanalyze them. Whether I succeed at this is another story. I think when we were explaining objects in the thread on TLP there was a tendency to go beyond Witt's ideas, i.e., to overanalyze the concept. I don't want to be too dogmatic about what I'm saying here, but I think generally this is the case.

What I like reading secondary sources for is to compare my interpretation with that of others. I'm not saying there aren't good reasons to read secondary sources, only that when it comes to interpreting this or that passage in Witt's writings it's easy to go down the wrong path. Of course, it's easy to go down the wrong path no matter what you do, which is why it's a fool's errand to think this or that interpretation is correct. No matter what you say there's going to be a few people who will disagree.

I like reading Witt to see where it leads me.

I think they are exactly that: normal propositions. They do not differ in their structure from any other proposition. Where they differ is in the place they take in the things we do with words. — Banno

Ya, that's one of the disagreements we have, among others, but that's philosophy.

The salient point I would make for you is that a game can only be played if some propositions are, not exempt from truth or falsity, but treated as being true. — Banno

I would say that what we are dealing with aren't propositions in the normal sense or Wittgenstein wouldn't have singled them out as hinge, bedrock, foundational, etc. I never thought they were exempt from truth or falsity. I said that generally hinges are not thought of as true or false. there are exceptions, and Wittgenstein gave examples of those exceptions.

"Treated as true" is an interesting phrase. How does this differ from normal propositions that we treat as true? Do we treat hinges as true, but they're not really true? Or, maybe we act as though they're true, like the rules of chess. "It's true that I have a hand" seems as odd as saying "I know I have a hand," again generally speaking because of the exceptions.

I've brought up the idea that there are pre-linguistic hinges (e.g. animal beliefs) that seem clearly to have no association with truth or falsity unless you bring in the linguistic concepts of true and false. This is also why I think there are different categories of hinges. It seems that this is implied in OC. It's "the deed" that comes first, i.e., how we act that shows the hinge.

I suspect saying that this or that belief is a hinge might mislead one into forgetting that the it is a hinge only within the games we play, the things we are doing - perhaps into thinking that it is a hinge always and in all circumstances. — Banno

I agree.

Much of what I've been doing is thinking out loud. So, my analysis is partly an exegesis, which is difficult because we don't know which parts of OC Witt would have left in or out of a final draft, and partly where I think his thoughts lead.

I think OC has something important to contribute to epistemology.

I don't have much more to say, so I'll end this here.

Happy Hunting.

:grin:

Of all the people I've engaged with over the years in this forum you're one of the few that remind me of a troll. I've been debating people in this forum long before you arrived. Whether you're right or wrong it's just the way you engage, it's so predictable.

I also think it worthy of note that "hinge belief" does not occur in OC. — Banno

All knowledge is about beliefs (unless we're talking about knowledge as a skill), and from the start of OC Witt talks about what Moore considers knowledge. Witt then goes on to explain that Moore's propositions, which are about what he believes to be the case (what he knows), have a special role. All the propositions, even those referred to as hinges, bedrock, foundational, etc., are about beliefs, which is why I refer to them as hinge beliefs. Indeed, Witt doesn't use that wording, but I think it's clear, at least in my mind, that hinge propositions (Moore's propositions) are about beliefs of a certain kind.

The difference between what some of you are doing in this thread and what I'm doing is that I'm trying to go beyond OC to where it might lead. For me, it's not always about getting the correct interpretation, because as you and I have mentioned many times these notes were never finished. We can argue endlessly over interpretations, which I find pointless (at least to some degree). What I think is important is getting a handle on Moore's propositions as endpoints (where justification ends) for epistemology.

Also, although Witt never talked about classifying hinges, I do think there are different kinds of hinges given a particular context or language game.

It seems that language games are only possible if we don’t question certain facts, and whether these facts are true or false. Here I’m referring to hinge propositions (or hinge beliefs). Moreover, I don’t believe that our grammar is conditioned by certain empirical facts. This is not to say that facts don’t play a role in our grammar, it just means that whatever the relationship is, it plays a lesser role. I say lesser role given the autonomous nature of language. There seems to be no doubt that there is some relationship between empirical facts and our grammar (Wittgensteinian grammar). Saying that facts condition our grammar, as per Moyal-Sharrock, seems to diminish the autonomous nature of grammar, especially since it’s grammar that determines what we mean by fact, object, and reality. So, our grammar presupposes these concepts, but it’s not independent of reality.

It seems clear that certain facts of reality, those that we don’t normally doubt, create the surface that allows language games to be played. Similar to a chess board providing the surface area for a chess game. So, the language game of asserting and denying, viz., being true or false rests on Wittgenstein’s hinge propositions (or hinge beliefs), and thus, any talk of epistemology (justification and truth) rests on hinges. Another way to say it is that our methodology of evaluating propositions rests on hinges.

Part of the problem concerns the conflation of hinge beliefs with our normal beliefs (or you could say hinge propositions with normal propositions), they are quite different and have different functions. So, the language game of epistemology is only possible if we never question certain facts. Just as playing a game of chess involves never questioning the rules of chess. The logical role of hinges is that of being beyond doubt and therefore beyond truth and falsity. To bring in the idea that hinge beliefs are true and false is to miss one of the core points of On Certainty. It’s like trying to shove a square peg into a round hole.

That's different.