I think a point you’re missing is that there might be things that can only be known in the first person, that are true, but not necessarily ‘objective’. I mean, if you restrict the criterion for what constitutes an ‘objective fact’ to the empirical sciences, then basically you’ve fallen into some form of positivism. — Wayfarer

Actually I would acknowledge that there are truths that can be known in the first person. There are plenty of experiences that we have, that can only be known in the first person. For example, there is no way that I can demonstrate objectively, whether scientifically of otherwise, that I had certain private experiences yesterday or probably at any time in the past. These can be fit within the context of what I'm saying, that is, they're not purely subjective, they have an objective component.

Also, if you've read my posts, you would have seen that my epistemology includes ways of knowing that do not fit a scientific model. For example, testimonial evidence, our knowledge through sensory experience that a piece of candy is sweet, and also linguistic knowledge.

Finally, and I'm very familiar with Dr. Alexander's book, I would contend that what people are seeing in these NDEs does constitute an objective reality, so what constitutes or makes up an objective fact is not limited to our spacial temporal reality (our universe). Any possible world, reality, or universe that has a spacial component would necessarily have an objective component, that is, mind-independent things associated with that reality. Moreover, since other people have seen similar things within the NDE framework or experience, I believe it shows an objective reality apart from ours. The logical positivists would definitely disagree with my philosophical ideas in terms of NDEs.

Totally agreed especially on this point

by its nature is beyond the purview of natural science. — Wayfarer

Few discuss limits of science and what can be alternatives.

since other people have seen similar things within the NDE framework or experience, I believe it shows an objective reality apart from ours. — Sam26

Your belief is always respected but when it comes to proving its objectivity, it's a dead end. The wikipedia summary put NDE to a suspension and I doubt with less formal approach one would get beyond that.

What you're giving is an opinion, not an argument.

Most agree on mind-body-other interaction, yes?

• I feel hungry, so I grab some grub, and don't feel hungry any longer (if animals consistently ignored or didn't get the feeling, then they'd starve and die)
• I want a sip of my coffee, so I reach out, grab the cup, and take a sip (no, I'm not inflicted by alien hand syndrome)
• I miss the nail, the hammer hits my finger instead, and I get a painful sensation that makes me more careful in the future
• I hear some yelling, and go check what the deal is
• ...

So, since the supposed "out of body floating self" can interact with it's body, it can presumably interact with whatever else (which is verifiable), yet that apparently does not happen. Spurious.

Can this "incorporeal observer" then only be affected by the world (i.e. be an effect in part), but not affect the world (i.e. be a cause in part)...? Except, not affected by gravity, though, maybe. For that matter, wouldn't any observed light be subject to transformation, which hence would be detectable? Dubious.

Somehow "seeing" without eyes, "hearing" without (inner) ears, "remembering" without a head, "fits" in exactly one body (the one required to report the experience), ...? When and how is this supposed "disembodied astral soul" installed in the body anyway? Suspicious.

Alien abduction stories at least report seeing with their eyes, and those are generally thought questionable already.

Something's amiss. A measure of healthy skepticism is warranted.

Finally, and I'm very familiar with Dr. Alexander's book, I would contend that what people are seeing in these NDEs does constitute an objective reality, so what constitutes or makes up an objective fact is not limited to our spacial temporal reality (our universe). — Sam26

Thanks! An important qualification, and one I would be inclined to agree with.


You’re neglecting a crucial factor, even it it’s somewhat mythical. Hint: three-letter word, begins with ‘f’.

You’re neglecting a crucial factor, even it it’s somewhat mythical. Hint: three-letter word, begins with ‘f’. — Wayfarer

Is it 'fad'? Maybe 'fob'?... Mmm, 'Fake' has four, can't be that... 'Fraud' is far too long... 'Phoney' doesn't even begin with an 'f' really... OK, I give up, do tell.

AH! Sorry! Four letters! Must admit to ‘typing under the influence’ and made the error on account of my condition. (Consider that a hint.)

I’m attending a wake at a hotel in the country.

A four letter word beginning with 'f', now you're just being rude!

‘Fall’.

From grace?

That was what I had in mind. It was a spontaneous reaction to Jorndoe’s post which I rather butchered, due to posing a clever riddle with an incorrect clue.

Fair point if you wanted only arguments. But what I referred to like Wikipedia researches already contained too many anti-arguments, why would I need to? My opinion found yours alike on some aspect and wanted to suggest a better way out but it's up to yours to move or stand still.

A measure of healthy skepticism is warranted. — jorndoe

OK, again you need a ground to stand on. Sounds like usual empirical or "scientific fashion" view, right? Can be anything else? That's main stream I don't doubt. I am just wondering who out their are willing to step out of it?
An easier question while we are on philosophy: have you ever wondered who is better to your taste: Plato or his famous follower Aristotle? and why if Plato? Don't need to tell if the other case.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They say that when you ask a question, the question already presupposes a certain type of answer, not just yes or no, but a tacit acceptance of the way of defining the terms of the question. Your question presupposes that notions like consciousness and body are entities that can be thought coherently apart from each other. For those who talk about an embodied mind rather than a brain in a vat, mind is not located in a cortex, but is distributed across not only the body, but extended into a environment. For them, questions come to mind such as would this consciousness be gendered, and if so how would one imagine the feeling of gender without body? What would be the feel in general of a consciousness without somatic sensation of affectivity, kinesthesia? And since it is said that consciousness is just an island in a sea of unconscious processes, what we imagine to be a linear stream of narrative consistency in thought is shot through and through with disruption and redirection from outside of it. They would say that what is considered most dear to consciousness, its will, its desire, its supposed freedom, shapes it from outside, via body and world. The fantasy of thinking a consciousness transcending a body is motivated by the dream of unshackling our freedom from the body seen as prison, but consciousness without body would be like semantics without syntax, thought without the direction of desire

consciousness without body would be like semantics without syntax, thought without the direction of desire — Joshs

Not necessarily. We have a glimpse of this state when we are dreaming, when there is no sense of body and time/duration abruptly changes state of feeling. This is the subject of Hamlet's soliloquy on death and living. The unconscious state that is actually shattered by an impulse to awaken, where duration and space evaporate, but where memory remains to remind of where we were, is another example.

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

What counts as evidence is itself framed by the terms of the question that drives the search for validation. There is no such thing as value-independent(interpretation-free) evidence. Whats most interesting for me about the topic of consciousness is not how dogggedly we can scrounge up evidence to validate a particular proposed conception of the issue, but how many different ways of conceiving it we can come up with, and in the process uncovering new criteria of what counts as evidence.

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

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

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

Whether or not @Joshs perspective coincides with yours or mine or anyone else, I believe his approach to the question is quite reasonable.

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

There are as many rules as one wishes to make, and outside of God I know if no arbiter. As I read @Joshs approach, he is simply open to more "clues". As philosophy is more or less detective work, it seems to me quite reasonable. Much more reasonable than any dogma that unnecessarily constrains inquiry.

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

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

You know that optical illusion where you can see the young woman or the old woman but not both at the same time? There is a sudden shift that takes place, called a gestalt shift, when your perceptual faculties reprocess all the data points from the first image and redefine their relationships such that the second image emerges. It's the same data points, but now their sense has changed since the pattern they belong to now has a different meaning. One could ask of the first image, is it true or false that the young woman in this image is holding flowers? Note that this question presupposes that the young woman is indeed depicted in the image, and one is looking for evidence concerning details within the already assumed relationships of the data points. GIven the starting assumption that the data points depict a young woman, the question would never be asked "Is the old woman wearing a hat?' , because given the focus on finding evidence for validating details of the first image, it has never occurred to the investigator to view the picture as a whole differently, such as to discover an image of an old woman replacing that of the young woman.

Thomas Kuhn would call this move from first to second image, with the consequent redefining of what constitutes appropriate evidence, a paradigm shift at the level of scientific theorizing.

"Are you saying there is no valid way of determining what good testimonial evidence is?"
Yes, there is, within the context of the original presuppositions, the 'paradigm' that is given at outset. Your originating paradigm presupposes a notion of consciousness that can be separated from one of body.
Within that paradigmatic framework one can indeed search for and locate validating or invalidating evidence. One can indeed determine the truth or falsity of questions that fall within the purview of the orignating logic(logics are always relative to starting premises). Once one transcends that paradigm, however, what constitutes valid or invalid evidence, truth or falsity, becomes redefined.Just as in the two images, it is not the case that one image is the true one and the other the false one. Each organizes a corner of the world differently, and wh8ich paradigm one chooses is a matter of pragmatic utility. Which paradigm seems to organize the data more parsimoniously, comprehensively, etc?

called logic. — Sam26

Logic is only limited by imagination.

objective facts. — Sam26

This is an a debatable concept.

Try using your own rules (your own clues) to do mathematics, — Sam26

Mathematicians do it all the time. Concepts are created to address new problems.

It is wise to examine dogma for cracks, because the rigidity of dogma makes it very susceptible to fracture. And, if I described your approach As quite naive, how would you be react?

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

Keep in mind that the people who believe that reality is like this(James and Dewey, phenomenology, poststructuralism, modernist hermeneutics, Karl Popper, many physicists, constructionism, recent analytic philosophy, embodied cognitive science, etc) mostly dont argue that no sort of scientific progress is possible. Thomas Kuhn certainly believed that science advances. So while they believe that no one view of reality is valid in itself for all time(there is no God's eye view or view from nowhere), they believe that our scientific constructions of reality become more predictively useful over time.