If someone showed you a phenomenon that were impossible to explain by laws of the physical world, you'd be compelled to believe in dualism.

There are two problems with this. One is that it is impossible to prove that something is impossible to explain by laws of the physical world. That's big enough a problem so I don't have to say what the other one is.

But if you just figured out that some observed phenomenon is not possible to explain; then you'd need to believe in dualism.

Some things are not explained by natural laws. This does not give them proof strength, but they do open the possibility (without any indication of probability) of other-worldly stuff happening in our lives.

We do have some things in our sphere of experiences that satisfy that very criteria. The notion that we have sensation, we see, not just look, we feel, not just touch. We also have a soul, which to this date has not been identified to have a link to our bodies.

These phenomena are not proof, but at this point a sign that possibly there is dualism.

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.

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

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).

:up: :up:

Physicalism could be falsified by clear evidence of something nonphysical existing. — Relativist

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.

So far, whatever is discovered and accepted as real in science is called physical/material, regardless of its properties or lack thereof. We now have fields, particles with no mass, particles in superposition - and also 'things' like this above the microscale. We have 'things' that can be in the same place at the same time - in the quantum realm, and 'things' slipping in and out of existence. Prior to these discoveries to be physical was a smaller more restrictive set of possible trait sets. I see no reason to assume we wouldn't call anything we find, whatever it is like and not like, physical. At least in science.

If Medieval theologians realized even the fairly traditionally physical (by qm standards) neutrino was considered physical and billions were passing through us daily with no effect, they might have said, well, sure angels might be made something like that. (and just to be clear, this was not presented as evidence of angels. I was trying to show how the idea of substance as far as physicalism is not fixed. It has expanded, not just in individual 'finds' but in what can now be considered physical). We find something and it gets called physical.

Which to me indicates that what looks like a committment to a monism and a position on substance: physicalism - is actually just a connected to a methodology and means 'real' (to the best of our knowledge real). But given the old monism/dualism battle and in particular the substance position battle between science and the Abrahamic religions, a stand has been taken on substance. And I can't see why some new phenomenon regardless of its qualities would be able to falsify, given the pattern, the substance claim.

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

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.

I was mainly replying to this idea.

Physicalism could be falsified by clear evidence of something nonphysical existing. — 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.

But part of my idea is that I think the terms physical and non-physical don't mean that much. Physicalism seems like a substance stance, but I don't think it actually is. If you look at the processes that people reached regarding their conclusion that everything (so far or period) is physical, you find a methodology of some kind. One that verifies what is real, rather than verifies something is physical.

As far as life after death and NDE's as evidence...
this makes me think of two things. When anecdotes started to be more widespread - given changes in our ability to resuscitate people in various catastropich medical situations - even the experiences themselves were denied. Not no an individual basis - like, you didn't experience that - but as it being soemthing that a number of people near death experience. To some extent this makes sense. It was not something doctors and scientists had heard of. But even when NDEs were experienced by a significant minority of those coming near death, it was denied, and that there were any patterns in these experiences was also denied. Obviously this does prove that the interpretations of those experiences are/were correct. My point is that even that people would experience these things was a challenge to paradigmatic assumptions.

the second thing is that how one reacts to what are now catalogues experiences, depends a lot on one's experiences. If a person has a lot of experiences that seem to or do indicate limitations of a particular paradigm, they are going to be more open evidence that also does this. Which is not a criticism of those who don't have those experiences and are more skeptical. I think both reactions are both natural and rational.

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.

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

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. There is plenty of evidence that people are describing conversations and observing things that are happening minutes before their brain returns to normal consciousness (e.g. Pam's NDE out of Atlanta). Even a cursory study of the experiences people report would reveal this. You are only speculating; you don't know it. When the brain returns to normal, memories would start at that point, not at a point in the past. There is just too much testimonial evidence that contradicts your assertion. All the fancy verbal gymnastics that people do to deny the evidence is just that, verbal gymnastics, much of it has no factual basis.

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.

Even if somehow we had a sense to capture non-physical information, as Kant argues, we would still think of it in terms of space and time and causation, thus packaging it in a physicalist way.

Being that we are physical beings who receive information through physical senses, one wonders if evidence of the non-physical is even possible. — Lionino

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.

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.

I'll add that we aren't JUST limited to information we receive through our senses. We can't physically sense quantum fields, but we have inferred their existence based on theoretical models that have great explanatory power and scope.

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

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.

*edit* I want to comment on this:

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

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.

You have treated the state of the person (e.g. "near death"/comatose/ etc) as somehow implying the person must have had an actual experience, but that does not follow. Slightly stronger, but still deficient - you've suggest that measurable brain activity is nonexistent (or nearly so), and therefore the mental experience cannot be due to brain activity. Wrong again, because this depends on the assumption that these sort of mental activites would necessarily produce measureable brain activity. Brain measurements do not detect all neuronal activities. Again, it's POSSIBLE, but you haven't showed this possibility is the best explanation.

There's plenty of evidence. — Sam26

:razz: Alright, give one.

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

Well, of course, which we get through physical sensors that display information through light on a screen to your eyes.

Well, of course, which we get through physical sensors that display information through light on a screen to your eyes. — Lionino

Maybe we can agree with this: all our knowledge of the world is grounded in our physical senses.

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

:100:

:up: :up: I.e. the interaction (e.g. energy conservation violation) problem¹ of 'mind-body dualism' presupposed by @Sam's ontic interpretation of statistically de minimis, anecdotal "NDEs" "OBEs" etc.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/#Int [1]

There's plenty of evidence. — Sam26

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.

I think the fundamental philosophical issue, apart from life after death metaphysics, is epistemological. Most epistemology focuses (obsesses) on the mundane: "am I really seeing this tree?" Comparatively less attention is given to the epistemology of the extraordinary. What would it take to (rationally) believe such a thing as NDEs? Clearly, testimony establishes that such experiences occur. But can testimony establish their interpretation as legitimate experiences of disembodied souls? What weight of evidence could establish such a thing?

It is the testimony of doctors, nurses, and other witnesses that ultimately counts. How strong is this testimony? They are basically witnesses to miracles. How do we evaluate such testimony?

Also, I haven't seen much attention paid to DMT. You agree that it includes very similar experiences. On the surface, this seems devastating to your argument, if chemical manipulation of the brain can induce this. Moreover , most people who take DMT understand the context, that they are taking a drug, and do not attribute their experiences to anything supernatural. It is only in the context of almost dying that people make such interpretations. I know that if I had a powerful psychedelic experience surrounding my near death, I would be absolutely fooled, and insist on a supernatural explanation. Whether it was, or just a natural trip.

BTW, have you tried DMT? How was it, or, why not?

My intuition is that these experiences have a ring of truth to them, i.e., truth in the sense that they are veridical. This is not an argument just an observation. When you listen to these experiences, the descriptions they give have the same matter-of-fact presentation that any veridical experience has. I don’t get the sense that they are like dreams, hallucinations, delusions, lack of oxygen to the brain, or drug interactions. They have the same feel, so to speak, as any real experience. Their memories are clear, the impact on their life is meaningful and life-changing, and when they refer back to these memories many years later the memories are just as clear and meaningful.

What many of them describe seems to indicate that they are separate from their bodies, i.e., they are looking at their body from a place outside their body. If you’re sitting in a waiting room having conversations with someone and later the person who has the NDE describes those conversations accurately, surely, you’re going to wonder how they could’ve known this. Or, if the person describes some insignificant action you did like going to a candy machine and buying a Snickers bar, you’re going to wonder how they could've seen you. Especially if you took note of the time and knew the person was in a state of unconsciousness. This kind of thing can’t be explained away by things like a brain waking up and now it’s remembering, delusions, dreams, or lack of oxygen to the brain. They seem to describe real events, which is what you would expect if the experience is veridical. It’s easy to explain away these events as this or that phenomena, but much harder to look at the experience objectively, especially if you’re not inclined to believe in a metaphysical reality like the ones they’re describing. These are just observations and aren’t part of my argument. However, I do think these observations are important and some of them are incorporated into the argument.

Almost all of these experiences describe communication as mind-to-mind as opposed to verbal communication. Many also describe not having a body as we know it, i.e., without legs, arms, eyes, ears, and one that is composed of some form of light. They move by simply thinking. They move through physical things like the objects aren’t even there. It seems they’re describing our world as something holographic, or something akin to being holographic. This seems to fit what being separate from the body would be like, i.e., your normal bodily senses aren’t functioning, and you have experiences that seem to be generated in another way. They do still seem to be in space and time because they’re moving from place to place, although it seems that time moves at a different pace there.

No two NDEs are going to be exactly the same, no more than any two experiences of people attending the same concert are going to be the same. There will always be differences because we experience reality from different perspectives. However, you would expect there to be some general agreement about the same experience and this is what you find in NDEs.

This example contains many of the elements I'm referring to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-Sr0VToqhI&t=684s

I was trying to think how I would argue against my conclusion. I might try to argue that consciousness extends a bit beyond the brain as maybe a quantum field and that consciousness might remain somewhat intact as the brain is dying. It may even be that as the brain is dying it gets a surge of power (like the brightness of a light bulb before burning out), so to speak, that makes reality seem even more intense, which might explain why people seem to think their experience is more real than real.

And maybe their encounters with other beings are just an influx of memories about loved ones and friends. So, it may be that some of what they’re experiencing is real and some of it is just the brain’s last gasp. I would probably argue something similar to this.

Of course, it's pure speculation. :nerd:

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, you're just repeating again and again that "These testimonies seem so real, so they must be real." That's just not an argument. That's a belief. We get you want it to be real. We can taste it through the screen. :) But its not an argument. You need to address so much more before anyone with good logical sense can buy into this.

The argument was given at least three times throughout the thread. Other posts emphasized different points made in the argument. Yes, I do repeat myself a lot. My argument isn't "These testimonies seem to be real, so they must be real." This indicates that you've only read a few posts. Here's the inductive argument one more time.

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.

I could add more to the argument, but this is the crux of the argument.

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.

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.

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

This is true. And its been mentioned repeatedly that the scope of your conclusions is too broad. Everyone accepts, "NDE's are real." There is not a good inductive conclusion for stating, "Therefore our consciousness actually leaves and returns to our bodies." Your scope is far too large, making this a weak inductive argument.

Fourth, truth of the premises. — Sam26

Of course. But again, the only truth that we all agree on is that we have NDEs. I've noted we can duplicate it with other experiences that aren't near death. I've noted that a person experiencing a NDE has never been able to describe an experience that was outside of their bodies senses, like a bright yellow duck that they didn't know was just behind them. Right there this destroys the idea that NDE's are actual out of body sensory experiences, as controlled settings demonstrate people are unable to prove they can sense things their body can't.

Fifth is cogency. — Sam26

And your argument is not cogent. The only thing you have is, "We have NDE's." That's means less than nothing. From that, we cannot conclude they are correct interpretations of reality, or memories of actively leaving the body when there is zero evidence of this actually happening in any study we've done.

Now lets go to your argument.

1. 5% of the population has had NDEs

Only viable conclusion: They had NDEs.
I agree they have NDEs. There is nothing more to be drawn from this point alone.

2.

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

Only viable conclusion: They had NDEs.
I agree they have NDEs. There is nothing more to be drawn from this point alone.

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

No, you have nothing that demonstrates this. We have NDEs. You have not demonstrated that the subjective experience of a NDE represents objective reality apart from their perception. Just like I can subjectively experience that the sun rotates around the Earth, the objective reality is the Earth rotates around the sun. I've already mentioned that scientific lab attempts to find any consistently odd reading, evidence of consciousness leaving the body, or OBE confirmations have all failed. Look into tests for psychic powers and other failed theories of science that have similar outcomes.

Another aid in establishing the truth of the testimonial evidence is firsthand accounts, as opposed to hearsay — Sam26

No one doubts people are having these experiences. Not me, or anyone else you've been discussing with. And yet you keep repeating it as if people having these experiences negates all the points we've mentioned about their subjective interpretations not matching with objective reality.

Another aid in establishing the truth of the testimonial evidence is firsthand accounts, as opposed to hearsay. — Sam26

Again, NDEs are real. You keep repeating this. We all know. We all agree. That doesn't mean they are viable evidence that consciousness leaves the body. You keep ignoring all the points we make about this and say, "But people experience NDE's!" We know. It does not logically lead to the conclusion that consciousness survives brain death.

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

Where? How? You don't give any evidence that NDE's objectively mean consciousness survives brain death. You only give evidence that people experience NDEs and we ALL agree with you on that. This is the repetition I'm talking about.

"OBE experiences in a lab settings cannot confirm actual sensing of what's in the room beyond a the person's immediate sensory fields, but that are clearly visible in the room."

Your rebuttal: "But NDE's happen to people!"

"We can duplicate NDE's without the brain being in a near death state."

Your rebuttal: "But NDE's happen to people!"

You have no crux of any argument that NDE's are any more than a common brain hallucination upon mild to moderate oxygen deprivation. You have no evidence that OBE's aren't more than piecing together what a person already sensed in the room prior to unconsciousness, or is processed by the unconscious sensing ears and eyes in between lucidity. All you have, is that we have NDE's. That is the only logical conclusion you can make. You have provided no evidence of any viable induction that consciousness can survive brain death. None. Repeating, "But we have NDE's!" is pointless. Please address the other points against why having a NDE does not mean consciousness has left the body, and you may have something. Until then, you just have a belief system with no viable evidence or argument.

Well, we just disagree.

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 Well, we just disagree. — Sam26

Philosophim provided a well-reasoned rebuttal, in his post, and your response is simply that you disagree. I hope you can see that he was spot on, when he said:

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

Not long ago, nobody knew what ‘an electromagnetic field’ is. Now, fields are more fundamental than atoms, which are said to be only 'excitations of fields'. So, what is ‘physical’ is being constantly re-defined. Hence the proliferation of sci-fi movies about alternative realities and many worlds. Physics sure ain't what it used to be.

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. Consider that if Sheldrake's 'morphic resonance' is real (and I know that this is a contested claim) - something of the kind at least provides a medium for the persistence of habit-patterns beyond the confines of birth and death.

The Buddhist view of re-birth is instructive in this context. It is not that there is an individual entity that transmigrates from life to life (a view that is harshly condemned in the early Buddhist texts). Rather there are patterns of causation that give rise to individual lives, and these patterns can be propogated from life to life, concieved as a mind-stream (cittasantana) of which individual lives are instantiations. It is much more like a process view than an entity view. The aim of the Buddhist path is to dissociate from these repetitive patterns of experience (saṃsāra, literally 'going around') which constitutes liberation. Otherwise the same patterns will go on to generate further lives (many of which will be, shall we say, considerably less fortunate than this one, according to Buddhist lore.)

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

There's also a book by a Buddhist scholastic monastic, Bhikhu Analayo, called Rebirth in Buddhism which contains a disspassionate account of the matter. I mention Stevenson from time to time, but his ideas are hugely controversial and to all intents taboo, especially on this forum. As rebirth is an accepted element in Buddhist cultures, such material doesn't suffer the same social approbation as it does in the West. (Stevenson used to say, 'when I talk about rebirth in the West, people say "that's nonsense, it never happens". When I talk about it in the East, people say "why bother with it? It happens all the time".)

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

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, and that he is a cardiovascular doctor who has a considerable body of research to draw on. Information about his book can be found here.

//

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.

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

I tried to explain this to you once before, but maybe I wasn't clear. Two senses of reality are usually brought up regarding NDEs. First, NDEs are real just like any experience is real, so yes, no one is arguing that the experience isn't real in that sense. Even hallucinations are real, but the point of disagreement is that they aren't veridical, just as hallucinations aren't veridical. 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.

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

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. Let's compare this to having 10 witnesses who are standing in various spots with distances as far away as 30 feet, but also with some witnesses being as close as 10 feet and also looking at the accident from various directions, not one direction. This example, demonstrates, not necessarily that the first group doesn't have a better vantage point, but generally speaking, you would want a group like the second group to lend support to your conclusion based on testimonial evidence. I could quote specific logic books about this point, but I'm not going to do that.

Reality tends to be consistent, you are right, but our experiences of reality as reported by people are not consistent, and here we're referring to testimonial evidence, not gravity.

That's all I'll say for now.

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

:100:

:up:

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

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:

You wouldn't know a good argument if it jumped up and bit you. Most of what you do is just share an opinion. :grin:

:rofl:

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

The link was just a link to their book. I can find at least one person in a professional setting who will go to bat for anything. The only thing that matters is the soundness of their evidence and the logic of their argument. My point in this thread is that Sam is not presenting a logical argument with sound reason. They are only presenting the fact that NDE's exist. Wayfarer, if you have the actual arguments and evidence, it might help Sam out in this thread a lot. I'm not against him, just his argument.

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

For me, this is not the case. I would love for there to be life after death. Only weird people who cut themselves in the dark while crying to death metal don't. :) But you learn as you grow that believing in things that you want but aren't true is childish at best, and dangerous at worst.

First, there is the danger of self-righteousness or excessive self-importance. The fantastic is exciting! Feeling like you've learned that a dragon is real can be an amazing feeling. Too amazing. You start to look down on other people who don't share it. You start to think "You get it, but they don't." And when you're holding onto an idea that's at its core a fantasy, you start to make other decisions in your life based on fantasy, and not reality. In general, such decisions don't end well for most people.

Second, and this can be heard from people who were deep in cults, belief in psychic powers etc...it makes you stupid. And no one wants to be stupid, especially smart people. Often times this underlying fear that one is wrong keeps people believing exciting fantasies long after they know in their hearts that its not true. It compels a person to subtly lie or disregard any evidence that would show them to be wrong. Thus, dishonestly and myopic vision sets in. People like this are often very easy to manipulate because once you start to justify believing the fantasy at any cost, people know your priorities and can get you to do things that a sane and honest mind would not do. My statement to them is that you're not dumb or dishonest for having bought into a fantasy. You're only dumb and dishonest if you stay with it when you know better. :)

Third, if you've been in such a pseudosystem before, you know the arguments and pattern of 'reasoning' already. And very rarely do people present knew arguments or rationals for the pseudosystem. Its not that I personally wouldn't love to hear new arguments. I would! I have no problem abandoning my old notions of reality if there is evidence of something better. But it needs to be more logically sound then my current notions.

Fourth, you can get caught up in the excitement of the fantastic as a rush, instead of looking at how exciting the mundane is. I know you're not a fan of everything being described in the physical Wayfarer, and maybe that's because its boring. I don't know. To me, I find it amazing that we're able to categorize and label almost all of objective existence into a category of measurable entities. I'm fascinated by the magic of chemistry. Of the fact that we can be wizards who ride around in giant death metal cages that run on the power of explosive liquid. When you see and understand reality, you can invent with it. You can improve with it. You can make magic with it.

Pseudoscience is always a dead end. You can't ever do anything with it but marvel at the idea of the idea. And once you get into a mindset that exciting lies and half truths are truth, regular reality can become dull and inconvenient. And that's a terrible thing. So its why, at least from my account, why I am against exciting and cool ideas that have no facts behind them, and need to pass certain evidential and logical bars of justification.

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

Right, we all get that. Where is your evidence that people's perceptions that they are real, means they are real? We've already given plenty of points to note that people have experiences in reality, and interpret them in a way that isn't veridical. They believe it to be a correct interpretation of reality, but its found it isn't. Remember the sun circling around the Earth? Feeling like things are real is not the same as it actually being real. Even if a lot of people feel that it is. That is an incredibly important point that you have not addressed, and must be addressed if you are to have an argument.

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

No, this is a consistency in experiences, not a variety. Perhaps you are using the wrong word or phrase here. What you seem to be implying is, "Consistency of results when repeated." So if we have 30 people witness the same thing, that would be a consistent outcome. If all 30 people had different results, variety, that would indicate more sound evidence that what was observed happened.

And again, we have a variety of NDEs. Some are positive, neutral, and horrifying. Only 5% of people have them, while most don't. When we look for a consistency of outcomes when testing its veridicalness, or if people subjective experience translates to objective reality, they fail. OBEs cannot observe things that they should be able to. Religious figures are based on what one beliefs in life instead of some objective religious figure or God they all experience.

The problem again, is you keep presenting information that definitely shows that NDEs are real subjective experiences, but does not have enough weight to argue that the interpretation of these subjective experiences match reality. What's worse, is you keep ignoring these points and reverting back to, "But NDEs are experienced," as your only go to here. This is immature thinking Sam. You can do better. You can simply say, "Yes, I guess there are competing compelling evidence that counters the idea that consciousness survives death. I don't have answers for them, but I'll think about it." And if you do have answers, bring them up to address the points. But if you have nothing more to say then, "But they experience NDE's", then this is not a philosophical conversation, but a person insistent in the rightness of their beliefs without a viable argument.