You'd have a point if this were a deductive conclusion. It's not. It's abductive: it's the best explanation for the set of known facts. Abductive conclusions do not prove the converse is logically impossible, and they are falsifiable. Physicalism could be falsified by clear evidence of something nonphysical existing. But in the absence of evidence, it's ad hoc to assume dualism (even though it's logically possible).We discussed in this thread the necessity of brain to function to have a consciousness. We concluded that consciousness does not exist outside of a functioning brain.
That is a false conclusion. Our consciousness may exist after death, but since it is not bound to any body, there is no physical evidence that it exists. Likely they don't exist, but possibly they do. — god must be atheist
Given the pattern in scientific research and models, I can't see how there is the possibility to falsify the idea 'if we discovered something non-physical' we would change our model to include dualism or pluralism as real possibilities or the case.Physicalism could be falsified by clear evidence of something nonphysical existing. — Relativist
I'm not just referring to the prevailing scientific models, but also to an individual justifying a belief. The relevant belief we're discussing is life after death. I interpreted that as being dependent on dualism, but I grant that is debatable- but I also think that is irrelevant to the issue at hand: do the anecdotes of NDEs suffice as evidence to justify belief in a life after death? I think the answer is no.Given the pattern in scientific research and models, I can't see how there is the possibility to falsify the idea 'if we discovered something non-physical' we would change our model to include dualism or pluralism as real possibilities or the case. — Bylaw
Any evidence will be called evidence that the phenomenon is physical. It made the meter shift. If affected the matter in our tech or senses, so it's physical. And then what I wrote in the previous post.Physicalism could be falsified by clear evidence of something nonphysical existing. — Bylaw
You're assuming that the experiences must have occurred during that lower functioning state. There's no evidence that that's the case. However, there are evidence that experiences can occur when the brain is coming back to its normal functioning state. — night912
Physicalism could be falsified by clear evidence of something nonphysical existing. — Relativist
Being that we are physical beings who receive information through physical senses, one wonders if evidence of the non-physical is even possible. — Lionino
Fair point, but it only points to the logical possibility that something nonphysical exists --and that's insufficient to justify belief in it.Being that we are physical beings who receive information through physical senses, one wonders if evidence of the non-physical is even possible. — Lionino
Do you agree that the best case you could possibly make would be an abductive one (i.e. an inference to best explanation)? In earlier posts, I've accused you of making an argument from ignorance - but you can avoid that by casting it as an abduction - arguing that your hypothesis is the best explanation for all available data. Why don't you do that? Fair warning: expect me, and others, to point out facts that you may be overlooking and the ad hoc nature of some assumptions you may be making.There's plenty of evidence. I find that most people don't seem to be able to evaluate evidence properly, or they have an epistemological view that puts too much emphasis on science or a certain scientific view. Epistemology is more expansive than just science. Most of what we know is through the testimony of others. — Sam26
The correct inference should be: these people had some mental experiences, not that these mental experiences were of actual events. A mental experience COULD be associated with an actual event, but there's no evidence of it.I'm not assuming anything. I'm making an inference based on the testimonial evidence that has been corroborated by doctors, nurses, family members, and friends. — Sam26
There's plenty of evidence. — Sam26
We can't physically sense quantum fields, but we have inferred their existence based on theoretical models that have great explanatory power and scope. — Relativist
Maybe we can agree with this: all our knowledge of the world is grounded in our physical senses.Well, of course, which we get through physical sensors that display information through light on a screen to your eyes. — Lionino
:100:I'm not assuming anything. I'm making an inference based on the testimonial evidence ...
—Sam26
The correct inference should be: these people had some mental experiences, not that these mental experiences were of actual events. A mental experience COULD be associated with an actual event, but there's no evidence of it. — Relativist
You allude to this often. This thread is quite long, so it might be helpful to edit the op with a compilation of the best evidence.There's plenty of evidence. — Sam26
First, number. It seems rather obvious that if you have a greater number of testimonials that say something happened, then the stronger the argument. — Sam26
Second, variety. The greater the variety of cases cited the stronger the conclusion. — Sam26
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 — Sam26
Fourth, truth of the premises. — Sam26
Fifth is cogency. — Sam26
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. — Sam26
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. — Sam26
Another aid in establishing the truth of the testimonial evidence is firsthand accounts, as opposed to hearsay — Sam26
Another aid in establishing the truth of the testimonial evidence is firsthand accounts, as opposed to hearsay. — Sam26
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. — Sam26
Well, we just disagree. — Sam26
Philosophim Well, we just disagree. — Sam26
Sam, I'm reading your future posts to others after our discussion ended, and an observation is that you don't address the criticisms people are levying against your points
... — Philosophim
I think the work of Ian Stevenson and his followers around reincarnation are closer than the NDE research, though I have to say I haven't look at the latter research for about ten years. — Bylaw
Again, no one, and I mean no one, is saying that NDE's aren't real. This is the part you seem to keep glossing over. If a bunch of people have a hallucination, no one doubts they have a hallucination. — Philosophim
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. — Richard Lewontin, review of Carl Sagan, Candle in the Dark, January 1997
First, number. It seems rather obvious that if you have a greater number of testimonials that say something happened, then the stronger the argument.
— Sam26
Again, no one, and I mean no one, is saying that NDE's aren't real. This is the part you seem to keep glossing over. If a bunch of people have a hallucination, no one doubts they have a hallucination. But the fact that multiple people have a hallucination is not an argument for that hallucination being real. — Philosophim
Second, variety. The greater the variety of cases cited the stronger the conclusion.
— Sam26
No, this is evidence of a weak inductive argument, not a strong one. A strong inductive argument is based on whether reality easily contradicts its conclusions. A variety of NDE's do not strengthen the argument that a NDE is really happening. Reality tends to be consistent. Jumping out of a plane is consistent. If someone jumped out of a plane and started floating higher, something is going on that we're not aware of. — Philosophim
:100:Well, we just disagree.
— @Sam26
It is more than that. Your claim is objectively not a strong inductive argument, and you have objectively failed to present a good and cogent argument worth considering. This is the philosophy boards, not the opinion boards. — Philosophim
Okay, so make the case – a sound argument – for this alleged "continuum" ... Once the facts of the matter are established, then we can interpret their philosophical ramifications (and, maybe, derive cogent, metaphysical conclusions). :chin:And I've long argued that if an individual life is understood as part of a continuum extending before physical birth that has consequences beyond physical death, that this can provide a framework within which the life beyond is at least conceivable. — Wayfarer
I don't know if Pim Van Lommel has been mentioned in this thread but he claims to have research that indicates that nde's can't be dismissed as mere hallucination. I'm not going into bat for that research, only noting that it does exist — Wayfarer
I think an interesting philosophical question to consider about this matter is, why the controversy? Not only is it controversial, but it provokes a great deal of hostility about 'pseudo-science' and 'superstitious nonsense'. As I said above, it's a taboo. I believe it's because it challenges the physicalist account of life, that living beings are purely or only physical in nature. If we believe that, then it's a closed question - and it's not necessarily a question we want to contemplate opening again. — Wayfarer
So, the sense in which I'm saying NDEs are real is that they are the same as the experience I'm having sitting here typing this response, viz., it's veridical. This is the disagreement. — Sam26
I don't know where you studied logic, but you are incorrect, i.e., the more variety you have in the cases studied, generally the stronger the conclusion. Maybe there are exceptions to this, but I think it's generally true for the type of argument I'm using. For example, let's say we have 10 witnesses of a car accident standing 30 feet away, and all the witnesses are standing roughly in the same spot. So, their observations are coming from the same general area. — Sam26
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.