• Sam26
    2.6k
    I've just read the full article. Perhaps you can clear up what seems, for me, the major stumbling block. Brain cells take hours to die from anoxia. Since NDEs are only recorded in those who've been resuscitated, by definition, their brain cells still had some capacity, they were dead according to cardiopulmonary measures, but there's no reason to assume their neurological system had no function.Isaac

    I'm only going to be coming to this thread from time-to-time to add a few comments, then I'm leaving to work on posts to Youtube.

    You're asking some good questions, and they deserve a response. It's true that brain cells take hours, and even days to die, so why would we not assume that due to that neurological life that this might account for what's happening in NDEs? I'm assuming that's what your question amounts to. First, we're talking about barely measurable activity, but that's far from the kind of activity needed to have very lucid experiences and memories. You're not suggesting that when the brain essentially shuts down, or is shutting down, that we get the same kind of sensory experiences that we get when the brain is fully functional, are you? The evidence doesn't suggest this at all. Moreover, many of the reports are claiming that the experiences are more lucid, not less lucid than veridical experiences. How would barely functional brain cells account for such activity. There have also been reports where the blood has been completely drained from the brain (trying to get to an aneurysm), and yet they seem to have full blown sensory experiences (Pam's account from Atlanta that happened in the early 90's).

    Also, there are other sensory experiences that NDErs are claiming to have that's more in line with an OBE. For example, hearing and seeing what's going on in other parts of the hospital, and reporting on conversations of loved ones miles away. These accounts would suggest that their report of being out-of-the body, is, at the very least plausible. And, when this is put together with all of the reporting as a whole, the evidence seems pretty strong.

    True, but death/coma is, in these cases, scientifically measured. If we relieve ourselves of the truth of such an assessment, then it's just as easy to say the survivors weren't dead (or near dead). In other words, nothing remotely unusual is happening here at all absent of a scientific expectation of mental activity in anoxic conditions.

    All the reports seem to show (I haven't read a lot) is some people report weird experiences in traumatic circumstances. It only becomes noteworthy if we learn these traumatic experiences were all 'near death'. But we only know they were 'near death' using a scientific investigation of their biology.

    It seems a little cherry-picking to accept a scientific definition of 'near death' to categorise these events, but then reject it when categorising what counts as neurological activity.
    Isaac

    Much of this is answered in the literature. We don't need science to tell us that someone is clinically dead if they've been under freezing water for 30 minutes or longer. So, there are many situations where there is no scientific equipment around to measure brain, heart, or breathing activity, and yet we know that they are dead. Now if you don't want to say they are clinically dead, that's fine, but you can't tell me that there's evidence that we experience normal veridical experiences in such a state. In some ways the definition of death is moot, because, as you say, these experiences also happen when people aren't considered dead.

    I don't know how you can say there's nothing unusual happening even in these states. People are reporting some very unusual things. They're describing events such as seeing deceased loved ones, having life reviews, traveling through tunnels, being told it's not their time, etc. So, how can you say there is "...nothing unusual happening?" Almost everyone agrees that something unusual is happening.

    This doesn't answer everything. I just don't have the time to write a 20 page paper in response to everything, but they are good questions. This will be my last post for a while. Thanks for responding.
  • Isaac
    10.3k


    Thanks for the response. As you're busy I'll pick up only what I think is the most salient point for any time you want to re-look at this.

    Memories do not form in real time, we can recall events in milliseconds which feel to us as if they took minutes (we have recall of recall - you can test the experience by trying to recall a dream). We also make narratives from very fragmented sensory data by simply substituting reasonable priors for missing information. Putting these two things together, it's possible that memories are rapidly formed in the first few milliseconds of being revived using the fragmented sensory data still entering the primary cortices of the brain during anoxia.
  • neonspectraltoast
    258
    Memories are stored outside of the brain in the events that transpired.
  • Sam26
    2.6k
    I came back because I did my video over for a third time. Third time is a charm they say. So, since I'm here I'll give a short response to your reply.

    I agree, memories take time to form, but you're not going to tell me that as we're being revived from, say, 10, 20, 30 minutes and longer (some shorter times also), and in some cases with no brain activity, that we're having vivid sensory experiences (seeing and hearing) and vivid memories. What you're doing is speculating, there's no evidence that you can get these kinds of experiences after this length of time. Is it possible? Sure, it's possible, but because something is possible that gives you no reason to believe it.

    Also, the memories and the narratives of these people are just too consistent. And if you compare NDE memories with everyday memories they're just as vivid, probably more vivid, than our everyday memories. I don't see that it's likely that a brain that is shutting down, or a brain that is showing no signs of life is going to produce such memories. I also don't see that's it's likely that a brain that's being revived is going to go several minutes back in time, even longer, and form vivid memories.

    It's not so much that people think it's been several minutes when it's only been seconds, it's that when you compare the times of when conversations took place, and when the brain was inactive, there should have been no way the brain formed such vivid memories of conversations and other activities. The times don't match your example.

    Thanks for the response.
  • Isaac
    10.3k


    I'm not sure I immediately see the problem, but I'm aware that I don't have as exhaustive a knowledge of the field as you do. The first thing I'd want to know, if such statistics are available, is what kind of proportions we're talking about in terms of who has a 'vivid' NDE and who doesn't. I ask because the degree to which I'd find it surprising would depend on how prevalent it is. It's surprising to win the lottery, but chance dictates that someone will.

    If (big if) our brains are collecting piecemeal data from the environment during anoxia, then it would indeed be surprising if the majority of people roused from anoxia were then able to reconstruct, from that drip-feed of data, an accurate and vivid account.

    It would not, however, be all that surprising to find a very rare, very low frequency occurrence of people just happening to strike gold and construct a vivid account from the barest crumbs. It's not impossible, just improbable, so the numbers matter.

    If you have numbers to hand (vivid NDE frequency over all patients spending time in anoxia), that would be interesting.
  • Sam26
    2.6k
    This is the 2nd video in my series of videos on NDEs and the argument for an afterlife.

  • 180 Proof
    14.5k
    A quick read of the wiki below provides a nontechnical but 'accurate' synopsis of the nature and etiology of hallucinations. Your video begins with cherry-picked premises which invalidate your conclusion, sir.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination
  • Sam26
    2.6k
    That's nonsense. I've read various studies on hallucinations, and what I've said is accurate. In fact, anyone who gives hallucinations even a cursory study will see the points of my rebuttal.
  • Sam26
    2.6k
    This is the final video, the third video on my argument for an afterlife based on NDEs.



    I will next be doing videos on Wittgenstein's On Certainty.
  • Nickolasgaspar
    1k
    There isn't any objective evidence in support of the existence of an entity labeled as consciousness. The only verified process carrying that label is a biological property observable in the function of biological brains.
    These videos you are posting are containing additional claims, not evidence that can be objectively evaluated.
  • Nickolasgaspar
    1k
    It always amazes me when people introduce the topic consciousness in a philosophical discussions without taking in to account the Academic epistemology of the respective Interdisciplinary field!
  • Sam26
    2.6k
    It always amazes me when people discount testimonial evidence, as not evidence. You obviously didn't listen to all of the videos where I addressed the issue of objective evidence. Moreover, I find it rich, that you talk about me not "taking in to account Academic epistemology..." which is what the soul of my argument has been about. You and should stick together because you seem to be expert at simply making pronouncements without an argument. If you can't give a decent argument that addresses the issues I've raised, then your objections amount to a hill of beans. How about reading and studying the literature and not assuming your conclusion is true without a basis in fact. Only one person in this thread gave a decent response to my inductive argument. Most of the other responses have been mostly visceral in nature, not logical.
  • Nickolasgaspar
    1k
    It always amazes me when people discount testimonial evidence, as not evidence.Sam26

    -I guess we agree on that. They shouldn't discount testimonial evidence as "not evidence". They are insufficient evidence until they are evaluated. Those huge studies and Cognitive Sciecne put to the test those testimonial evidence and rendered them bad evidence

    You obviously didn't listen to all of the videos where I addressed the issue of objective evidenceSam26
    -Correct. I am not going to watch a video presenting claims that are in direct conflict with our current scientific epistemology. I am willing to read a scientific paper that challenges our epistemology through objective evidence...but not videos like this one( I am sure I have watched them before and I wont do it again).
    Objective evidence is a PRAGMATIC Necessity in our methods of evaluation. ITs the reason why we don't have many conflicting schools of sciences. The lack of the criterion of objectivity is the reason why we have more than 4.300 conflicting religious dogmas and 160+ different Spiritual worldviews making all kind of supernatural claims.

    Moreover, I find it rich, that you talk about me not "taking in to account Academic epistemology..." which is what the soul of my argument has been about.Sam26
    -You are using Supernatural Speculations by some "Academics", not Academic Epistemology. None of those claims are part of our Epistemology in Cognitive science or Neuroscience.

    You and ↪180 Proof
    should stick together because you seem to be expert at simply making pronouncements without an argument.
    Sam26
    -ok......well I don't need to make any arguments especially when we deal with scientific knowledge. I can send you a tone of Academic courses proving the claim in your title wrong. Can you do that? of course not...

    How about reading and studying the literature and not assuming your conclusion is true without a basis in fact. Only one person in this thread gave a decent response to my inductive argument. Most of the other responses have been mostly visceral in nature, not logical.Sam26
    -There are great Academics Moocs on the subject. Nowhere in those courses you will find scientists entertaining the claims you are presenting because no objective evidence to support them...only stories of people interpreting their experiences based on their beliefs.

    Lets return to my initial objection about your OP.
    The title of this thread is "Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body" and you go on cherry picking "evidence" that are testimonial and you ignore all the scientific body of evidence.This is dishonest. Then you declare testimonial evidence to be "academic" when Science rejects subjective opinions by default!
    Ignoring credible epistemology makes your claims pseudo philosophical.
  • 180 Proof
    14.5k
    The title of this thread is "Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body" and you go on cherry picking "evidence" that are testimonial and you ignore all the scientific body of evidence.This is dishonest. Then you declare testimonial evidence to be "academic" when Science rejects subjective opinions by default!
    Ignoring credible epistemology makes your claims pseudo philosophical
    Nickolasgaspar
    :clap: :100:
    This summary observation is very much worth repeating.
  • Sam26
    2.6k
    You obviously didn't listen to all of the videos where I addressed the issue of objective evidence
    — Sam26
    -Correct. I am not going to watch a video presenting claims that are in direct conflict with our current scientific epistemology. I am willing to read a scientific paper that challenges our epistemology through objective evidence...but not videos like this one( I am sure I have watched them before and I wont do it again).[/quote]

    I'm inclined not to respond to this because you've already decided without looking at my argument, that the argument is in direct conflict with the epistemology of science, and therefore must be false. First, you act as though the science of consciousness is settled, which is incorrect. It's settled for some, but it sure isn't settled for others (other scientists), and still others are on the fence. The only thing that matters are the arguments (the logic), are they good inductive arguments or not. The epistemology of science is mostly based on logical (mostly inductive) reasoning based on the data (data here is used in a very broad sense including mathematics), and the observations (sensory experience) of various experiments. However, epistemology is much broader than just science, i.e., I don't need science to confirm many of our knowledge claims. I can use an inductive argument to reason to a conclusion without any use of science, and know that the conclusion follows. I explain this in my thread, and in my videos. I also explain in this thread how it is that we can have NDEs that are verified objectively, i.e., corroborated or verified testimonial evidence.

    It's true that science generally adds to the certainty of our arguments, but it's not as though we can't know things apart from science. By the way, there is scientific data that supports much of my argument. There is science being conducted all over the world on this subject. However, I don't have to rely on science to reach my conclusion, even if it helps.

    Also, there are no other videos like mine, so to assume that my videos are like other videos is just false. My video takes an epistemological approach to the subject based on different methods of justification. Anyone who takes the approach that you are taking isn't serious about challenging an argument. It's more likely that they are just giving a biased opinion with the words science and epistemology thrown into to make it sound intellectual, but it's far from that, and far from good philosophy.

    lol You can't seem to think for yourself. All you know how to do is quote other arguments or other people. Don't you have any arguments?

    So, let's see, cherry picking the evidence according to you is ignoring what? What in particular am I ignoring that explains these NDEs. I have read many of the counter-arguments, and I've addressed many of the counter-arguments. For example, hallucinations, lack of oxygen to the brain, drugs, dreams, memory explanations, arguments that the brain is the only source of consciousness, that consciousness is an illusion, on and on. Many of these I've addressed, and none of these explain what's happening when for example, someone is clinically dead, the blood is drained from the brain with no measurable brain activity, no heartbeat, no breathing, etc., yet they are able to describe in detail what's going on around their body and to their body. Moreover, their are too many cases that are very similar to this to ignore because you in your infinite knowledge deem it impossible. It can't be, says, , the science I rely on just can't be wrong.

    I'm not cherry picking anything. It's just your way of trying to make someone look bad because you don't like what their saying. If you had a decent argument, then okay, I would say we just disagree, but you don't, and Nickolasgaspar is arguing without knowing my argument. I suggest you both take some basic philosophy, and learn how to respond to arguments.

    Happy Hunting
  • 180 Proof
    14.5k
    ↪180 Proof .... Don't you have any arguments?Sam26
    :roll: You know I do ...

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/776786 (criticism posted above which still stands)

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/762279 (an argument from a recent "NDE" which you could not counter)
  • Sam26
    2.6k
    Okay, I'll bite. The first link is not an argument against anything I've said, it's basically a definition of a hallucination. There's nothing in that definition that I haven't said myself at some point, so I'm in agreement with how it's defining the term hallucination.

    I also added a link to my argument which was a peered reviewed paper headed by Dr./PhD Sam Parnia which was an agreement among many academics from around the world stating that these death experiences aren't hallucinations.

    Not true. Just because you do not accept my argument — you certainly haven't refuted it – doesn't indicate I haven't made an argument. Another showing that your reasoning, Sam, is quite poor.

    What you fail to consider or recognize is that every life from its birth to its death is a "near-death experience" because we are mortal beings. There cannot be even a glimpse of – that there is – "life after death" by the not-yet-dead any more than "north of the North Pole" can be reached by a hiker. That people are revived to tell their "NDE stories" proves they were not ever fundamentally – metaphysically – dead to begin with. "Clinical death" only indicates the limit of medical interventions for reviving the patient; this, however, is not organic, irreversible death.

    While the patient is "down" and there is a complete cessation of brain activity, this is proof that the patient's brain is not forming any new memory traces of the so-called "NDE" the patient believes she had while her brain activity was zero. So whence the "NDE"? It likely happens during the patient's revival after brain activity has resumed.

    Notably, the vast majority of coma patients who revive from near or complete vegetative states do not report "NDEs"; that a very tiny fraction of "the clinically dead" have reported "NDEs" is no more statistically significant than reports of "alien abductions".

    It's interesting that you say my reasoning is quite poor, which would mean that all the A's I got on my logic exams, must have been a fluke. Or, maybe I just forgot all the symbolic logic and modal logic I studied. Possible, but not likely. Moreover, if you're going to say that my reasoning is faulty you have to show where the argument is flawed, where the premises are false, or at least give an argument that puts the premises in doubt.

    Second, your statement that, "What you fail to consider or recognize is that every life from its birth to its death is a "near-death experience" because we are mortal beings." Here, all you're doing is defining life as a near-death experience because all of us are mortal. This is not how the term is used in the context of my argument, and virtually no one I know, even critics of NDEs would talk like this. If this is supposed to be a premise to your argument you're going to have to do a bit better, to say the least.

    I'm not going to respond to the rest of your so-called argument because it demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the concepts involved. All you're doing is re-defining the terms to fit your idea of reality. Let's just agree to disagree.

    I agree that it's an attempt at an argument, but it's a poor attempt at best.

    Happy Hunting
  • Nickolasgaspar
    1k
    I'm inclined not to respond to this because you've already decided without looking at my argument, that the argument is in direct conflict with the epistemology of science, and therefore must be false.Sam26
    -I should have done the same with your OP because you already decided to ignore the epistemology that really matters and instead present fringe supernatural claims as if it is science or legit philosophical conclusions.
    But I didn't because this discussion will benefit by standers and those sitting on the fence.
    Not wasting time in material containing arguments without objective facts and being in conflict with Science and its principles is the wise thing to do. If you could state your argument and point to the body of objective evidence, that would be a different story. Subjective takes of dying brains is not the best way to reach a conclusion.

    There isn't any "issue with objectivity". ITs the most credible and successful criterion we currently have in epistemology. Objective Independent verification is what elevates our standards of evaluation and successfully demarcates Knowledge from Nonsense. Its better to keep some conclusions "waiting" in line due to the lack of objectivity than to pollute our epistemology with nonsense.

    First, you act as though the science of consciousness is settled, which is incorrectSam26
    -Strawman. I am only pointing out that you are ignoring the current paradigm of Science and our current scientific frameworks on the subject. NOTHING is settled in science, even its principles (of Methodological Naturalism)...but you will need Objective evidence to change anything, not hearsay.

    It's settled for some, but it sure isn't settled for others (other scientists), and still others are on the fence.Sam26
    -I don't mind people sharing different beliefs, what I do mind is when they share their own facts and they ignore our current established epistemology.

    The only thing that matters are the arguments (the logic), are they good inductive arguments or not. The epistemology of science is mostly based on logical (mostly inductive) reasoning based on the data (data here is used in a very broad sense including mathematics), and the observations (sensory experience) of various experiments.Sam26
    _Correct. Pseudo Philosophical interpretations on consciousness are not acceptable arguments. People having an experience they can't understand ... doesn't make magic (floating minds) true!

    However, epistemology is much broader than just science, i.e., I don't need science to confirm many of our knowledge claims.Sam26
    -Correct, but when two claims compete on explaining the same phenomenon, Science is the way to go, more systematic, more methodical and its doesn't make up invisible entities to explain the phenomenon.


    I can use an inductive argument to reason to a conclusion without any use of science, and know that the conclusion follows.Sam26
    -You literally stated that you are going to arrive to a conclusion while ignoring the most methodological and systematic facts available to us....that is irrational. Your epistemology SHOULD include everything that is available us and remove those which do not meet the highest standards of systematicity

    I explain this in my thread, and in my videos. I also explain in this thread how it is that we can have NDEs that are verified objectively, i.e., corroborated or verified testimonial evidence.Sam26
    -Yes you explained it and it is wrong. You ALWAYS should work with the best available epistemology either it originates from science or not. NO , NDEs haven't been verified objectively There are cases where we can't explain the phenomenon (and the answer is "WE don't know) but most of the cases are easily explained without invoking magic. What is suspicious is, during a controlled setup we are unable those testimonies.

    It's true that science generally adds to the certainty of our arguments, but it's not as though we can't know things apart from science.Sam26
    -Sure but that is not an excuse to accept supernatural claims. Our standards of evaluation should be equally high and we shouldn't accept Magic as an answer. We are not going to change the Scientific Paradigm of Methodological Naturalism for a Death Denying ideology of flying minds not being contigent to biological brains with an expiration date.

    By the way, there is scientific data that supports much of my argument. There is science being conducted all over the world on this subject. However,Sam26
    No there isn't any. There are data with really bad and unfounded interpretations on non scientific principles(supernatural) and that is not science.

    However, I don't have to rely on science to reach my conclusion, even if it helps.Sam26
    -IF your conclusion was sound, then science would've accept it. The problem is not that your conclusions are a product of a non scientific methodology, but they are in conflict with what we know and can verify about how the world works. We don't observe Advance properties manifesting in reality out of thin air. We have done the same error in the past again and again, making up magical entities to explain a phenomenon. ITs not wise to keep repeating that mistake.

    Also, there are no other videos like mine, so to assume that my videos are like other videos is just false. My video takes an epistemological approach to the subject based on different methods of justification.Sam26
    -The issue is with your principles. Supernaturalism NEEDs to be demonstrated before being used as an answer. Advanced Properties don't just emerge in nature, they are contingent to physical functions.
    Gods, spirits, minds etc are not legit explanations. They are lazy attempts to address mysteries by appealing to bigger mysteries.

    Anyone who takes the approach that you are taking isn't serious about challenging an argument. It's more likely that they are just giving a biased opinion with the words science and epistemology thrown into to make it sound intellectual, but it's far from that, and far from good philosophy.Sam26
    -The argument is over 35 years ago. The evidence on conscious states being the function of the brain is overwhelming. We have technical applications and surgery protocols and diagnostics and medicinal protocols that are designed to treat the tissue of the brain for all mental "mulfunctions"...none of them are designed to tread minds in space.

    It's more likely that they are just giving a biased opinion with the words science and epistemology thrown into to make it sound intellectual, but it's far from that, and far from good philosophy.Sam26

    -if your argument included our current epistemology and objective evidence why it is wrong (not because some patients with a dying brain had an experience),then I would accept the unbiased nature of your claims. The issue with your supernatural conclusions is that they are untestable unfalsifiable, can't be used to produce technical or commercial applications and they just promote a new mystery as an answer. Its not rational or philosophical.
  • Nickolasgaspar
    1k

    I will try to introduce some meaning to this discussion.

    You are making claims and arriving at conclusions based on Testimonies WITHOUT first providing a functioning definition of what "Consciousness" means to you.
    A definition should include a description of the Property(Phenomenon in question) plus the ontology (mechanisms, type of substance,process) of it.
    Do you have one?

    I will present the current scientific Definition and Description of science about the Property of consciousness and we can go from there. We can compare them and see whose framework introduces unnecessary entities and whose has an additional instrumental value.


    Definition.
    "Consciousness is an arousal and awareness of environment and self, which is achieved through action of the ascending reticular activating system (ARAS) on the brain stem and cerebral cortex "
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3722571/
    So this the biological process that enables our ability to be conscious of stimuli(internal or external).

    Lets now take a look at the brain mechanisms responsible for the content of our conscious states.
    The Central lateral thalamus allows different parts of the brain responsible for Symbolic language/Meaning, Memory, Pattern Recognition, Intelligence,feelings, Previous Experiences, Problem solving etc to communicate and introduce content in our conscious state and process any new stimuli.
    https://www.inverse.com/mind-body/tiny-brain-area-could-enable-consciousness
    https://www.inverse.com/mind-body/neurobiology-of-consciousness-study-explained
    https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02091/full
    IT goes without saying, physical damages (injury, intoxication etc) in the above areas affect our conscious states or even terminate those states is the damage is serious and extensive.
  • bert1
    1.8k
    A definition should include a description of the Property(Phenomenon in question) plus the ontology (mechanisms, type of substance,process) of it.Nickolasgaspar

    That's not right, and it's really important. A definition sets the limit of the application of a term, and it enables you to be able to use a word in a conversation, hopefully. It picks out, as efficiently as possible, the thing you are talking about. A definition typically contains far less information than a theory. What you are asking for with this is a definition plus a theory.

    Your 'definition':
    Definition.
    "Consciousness is an arousal and awareness of environment and self, which is achieved through action of the ascending reticular activating system (ARAS) on the brain stem and cerebral cortex "
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3722571/
    So this the biological process that enables our ability to be conscious of stimuli(internal or external).
    Nickolasgaspar

    ...is a theory. The reason I know it is a theory is because I disagree with it, YET I still know how to use the word 'consciousness'. There's few things that piss me off more than someone with a theory insisting that I must agree with them because that's what a word just means!

    That's not to say that the line between theory and definition is always easily drawn, I accept that. I made a thread about it here:

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11467/poll-definition-or-theory
  • Nickolasgaspar
    1k
    You are off topic. You sound ignorant on the use of Definitions in science and philosophy and you are ignorant on what "theory" means in science.
    I do not see a meaningful conversation happening with you bert...
  • Sam26
    2.6k
    Sorry, but I'm just not going to engage much more because I'm working on other projects, and that's taking up much of my time. I'm currently going back to my work on Wittgenstein's final notes called On Certainty and its epistemological implications. I'm hoping to create videos on YouTube that give an overview of Wittgenstein with emphasis on his final thoughts.

    There is enough in this thread and videos to address almost all of the criticisms. Obviously much more could be added to address other questions, but I choose to move on. Thanks for all the responses, even if there is disagreement.

    Happy Hunting
  • Nickolasgaspar
    1k
    So your way of doing Philosophy is by putting up videos containing either pseudo scientific material or pseudo philosophical interpretations on the topic???
    There is a really easy way to convince people of your beliefs being scientific.
    There is a huge online Data Base of Neuroscience's publications called:
    https://neurosciencenews.com/
    You can go there and find a publication which verifies your claims....just one paper verifying your ontology will do!
    I guess good luck with that?
  • Sam26
    2.6k
    Ya, you've got me figured out, you're a regular genius. Grow up.
  • Nickolasgaspar
    1k
    I never said that I figured you out...and I don't need to be a genius to figured you out. I only have to look in the Philosophical Principles (supernatural) by which you make your interpretations. Those by definition render your Philosophy pseudo.
    You are bailing out the moment I pointed out the method by which you can demonstrate the academic validity or your claims....why is that?
  • Nickolasgaspar
    1k
    Just started watching your video(part2 I think)...and right at the beginning you start with wrong premises.
    You are promoting a strawman that science explains testimonials for NDEs as shared hallucinations. That is wrong. Science's explanation is based on the fact of a malfunctioning brain deprived of oxygen enabling an experience where the individual interprets its based on its cultural background. This is why Christians tend to see their mythological heroes while other religious people agree with their iconography and doctrines.

    So all 3 premises on your first arguments go out of the window.
    Are the res of your arguments of similar quality????
    Btw we do have documented mass hallucinations or better mass hysteria where member of crowds adopt the narrative of their leader.
  • Nickolasgaspar
    1k
    Started watching your 1st video.
    Again, right in the beginning there is a huge error.
    You define your goals, but in your third point you are committing an error that ALL philosophers and scientists SHOULD avoid at any cost.
    You state: "To leave people with a sense of hope that there is something more , something beyond this life."
    Long story short you SHOULD NEVER include in your goals the position you are trying to prove !!!! That's a red flag.
    That should only follow from the evidence and should only be in your conclusion sir!!!!!! Of course you are going to steer everything to point at your goal.
    Your first two goals are neutral....your last goal should be too.
    Your logic and philosophy is really bad Sam!
  • Sam26
    2.6k
    This is an amazing story of an NDE and its transforming power.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDNGOwC3AFM
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.