While I hear this argument as strong, it is actually not all that clear and decisive imo. Your analogy between radiowaves and consciousness(waves?) doesn't hold very well at all. — AmadeusD

I did not mean to state it as a fact, just a separate consideration before we jump onto the idea that we're only correlating.

It's also quite fun, so I really appreciate you making a thorough response in good faith there. Unsure why Sam got upset tbh. — AmadeusD

I appreciate it, I was unsure myself.

I think this is a little bit of a red herring when it comes to theorizing in teh way we do here (or, philosophy in general). I think if the theory has no knock-downs, we can hold unparsimonious theories. They just shouldn't take precedence. But, the "brain-as-receiver" theory is as old as time and has some explanatory power so I like that it's not being written off. — AmadeusD

Do you have the conscious experience of homunculusly controlling a meat puppet through some sort of communication channel? If so, what do the controls (that homunculus-you uses to control meat puppet-you) looks like?

Are they red?

I think this is a little bit of a red herring when it comes to theorizing in teh way we do here (or, philosophy in general). I think if the theory has no knock-downs, we can hold unparsimonious theories... — AmadeusD

This seems to suggest that it's OK to believe any theory that isn't provably false. That may not be what you meant, because you followed with:

...They just shouldn't take precedence.

What does it mean to "hold" a theory, but not have it take precedence?

My view: a theory can only be rationally held if it is arguably the "best explanation" -i.e. the product of abductive reasoning. Even so, that is often too low a bar to compel belief in it (and the sort of abductive reasoning we do will be unavoidably subjective).

:up: :up: Of course.
:grin:

just a separate consideration before we jump onto the idea that we're only correlating — Philosophim

Fair enough mate :)

Do you have the conscious experience of homunculusly controlling a meat puppet through some sort of communication channel? If so, what do the controls (that homunculus-you uses to control meat puppet-you) looks like? — wonderer1

1. Yes;
2. Choices.

This answers nought. Sometimes those choices appear Red to me. This also doesn't answer anything ;)

This seems to suggest that it's OK to believe any theory that isn't provably false. — Relativist

No. "believe" is doing a huge amount of speculative assumption here. I did not intend, nor did I (best I can tell) intimate that i even considered this aspect of the issue as relevant. Belief is not relevant here.

What does it mean to "hold" a theory, but not have it take precedence? — Relativist

Entertain it. Don't write it off (this also, best I can tell, a pretty clear inference from my post - I said it outright at the end). Let it explain what it can for those who want to play with it until it doesn't. Not your circus.

a theory can only be rationally held if it is arguably the "best explanation" — Relativist

In areas where we have no good ones(or at least satisfactory)? Bollocks. Entertain all comers.

Even so, that is often too low a bar to compel belief in it — Relativist

Luckily, I made no attempt to even intimate 'belief' in what I was trying to say. Apologies if this post comes off combative - I feel words were put in my mouth.

This answers nought. Sometimes those choices appear Red to me. This also doesn't answer anything ;) — AmadeusD

It wasn't intended to answer anything. Just provide food for thought.

I made no attempt to even intimate 'belief' in what I was trying to say. Apologies if this post comes off combative - I feel words were put in my mouth. — AmadeusD

I was simply asking for clarification of what you meant, because I had not drawn the "clear inference" you thought I should. I think I understand now. Sorry to bother you.

Fair enough!

Sorry to bother you. — Relativist

Not at all! I was far more concerned that my reply would come off bothering to you :P

An interesting podcast on consciousness.

Two AI's Discuss: The Quantum Physics of Consciousness - Roger Penrose Deep Dive Podcast

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-isq40ARB9g

An interesting take on the argument of materialism vs idealism by Bernardo Kastrup.

Bernardo Kastrup | Refuting Materialism: full lecture

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPCvQQQrZwU&t=2164s

I believe in life after death. But I want to quibble first with some terminology. Why do you say 'consciousness' survives death, rather than 'the person' or 'the mind' survives death? I am not a consciousness. i am a person. I am conscious a lot of the time (though unconscious some of it). When I am unconscious I am not non-existent. I exist, but I am just not conscious. So 'consciousness' and 'a person' are not equivalent. My quibble, then, is that it is persons or minds (I use the terms interchangeably) who survive death, not 'consciousness' (consiousness is something persons have, but it is not what a person 'is').

Although I believe in life after death, I think NDEs are not good evidence for it. They seem better explained as dreams.

I also don't think most of those who have them really believe in them. For most of those who have them experience what seems to them to be a positive afterlife (though about 10% are negative). Yet they don't then kill themselves. Why is that? If you travel to a wonderful place, surely you're keen to get back there again? So, why don't those who have had NDEs kill themselves (and encourage others to do likeewise)? They don't - in fact they the data suggests they are, if anything, less likely to kill themselves than those who have not had NDEs. That makes no real sense, does it? I mean, are they all profoundly irrational? Or do they not really believe they were real? I suspect the latter.

Although I believe in life after death, I think NDEs are not good evidence for it. They seem better explained as dreams. — Clearbury

I'll answer this question first. I've written a lot about why I think NDEs give us good testimonial evidence, and why they're different from hallucinations, dreams, delusions, or any other purely subjective experience. The main difference is that they can be corroborated by others who were there. In other words, doctors, nurses, family, friends, and any other person at the scene can corroborate or invalidate what the NDEr is claiming to have experienced (seen, heard, etc). So, if others who were at the scene affirm one's claims, then that puts the experience into the realm of objective reality. This is what separates the NDE from hallucinations, delusions, or dreams. We can't corroborate what you see or hear in a dream. I can't go to your friend who was in your dream and ask if he said X, Y, or Z. The way we generally know that an experience is veridical is that others are having the same experience, or generally the same experience. Corroboration is one of the ways we use to examine whether or not testimony is reliable. This is seen in good detective work and even in good science.

'consciousness' survives death, rather than 'the person' or 'the mind' survives death? I am not a consciousness. i am a person. I am conscious a lot of the time (though unconscious some of it). When I am unconscious I am not non-existent. I exist, but I am just not conscious. So 'consciousness' and 'a person' are not equivalent. My quibble, then, is that it is persons or minds (I use the terms interchangeably) who survive death, not 'consciousness' (consiousness is something persons have, but it is not what a person 'is'). — Clearbury

Consciousness is much broader in scope than just being a person, although it's true that I'm referring mainly to persons. I believe that there is some element of consciousness in most if not all living things. I also believe that consciousness is at the heart of reality and that all of us ultimately come from this core consciousness. Death simply returns us to where we reside. What makes you who you are, are the memories and experiences that attach to your specific conscious awareness. For you to survive death I believe that your specific conscious awareness with all the memories and experiences that attach to you must survive, and I believe it does.

When you're unconscious you still exist, you're just not aware for a while, or you're vaguely aware as in a dream. Being unconscious seems to be something specific to this body, or more specifically, to the brain.

I also generally use the terms consciousness and mind as synonyms.

Although I believe in life after death, I think NDEs are not good evidence for it. They seem better explained as dreams. — Clearbury

When I am unconscious I am not non-existent. I exist, but I am just not conscious. So 'consciousness' and 'a person' are not equivalent. My quibble, then, is that it is persons or minds (I use the terms interchangeably) who survive death, not 'consciousness' (consiousness is something persons have, but it is not what a person 'is').

:up: :up:

The main difference is that they can be corroborated by others who were there. — Sam26

:roll: In other words, there was no "NDE" just a non-ordinary experience of a living person that is misattributed by her and then on rare occasions circumstantially corroborated by other living persons (e.g. like sober witnesses to a black-out drunk's shenanigans). Of course, forensically, eyewitness testimony² like introspection¹ is usually unreliable as evidence.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introspection_illusion [1]

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5544328/ [2]

But they're not synonyms - one is a state of a thing and one is the thing itself. But anyway, I suppose that's just a terminological issue (actually, I think it reflects the 'mind is the brain' view currently dominant, where it is consciousness that is what is distinctive about the brain, as opposed to there being a soul that has the consciousness).

There are two types of NDEs that you seem to be conflating. There are those that involve floating about in the room. Those are the ones that, supposedly, others can corroborate - though I think there's no hard evidence of such corroboration. Plus, just as we incorporate alarm sounds into dreams, nothing stops the same happening in these scenarios.

Then there are the NDEs where people seem to have the experience of travelling to a different realm. Those are not corroborated. There's a similarity among these experiences, but there's a lot of similarity between dreams too, and the similarity does not seem significantly greater.

You also haven't addressed my evidence that thsoe who have the latter NDEs don't really believe in them. They typically (not invariably) report the afterlife as being a great place in which they are reunited with loved ones. Ok. So why don't they kill themselves and encourage others to do likewise? That is what we would typically do if we find a beautiful place - we try and revisit it and encourage others to do likewise. These people claim to know, in a way that the rest of us do not, what lies in wait for us the other side of death. And they claim it is wonderful. Yet they seem reluctant - more reluctant, if anything, than the general population - to go back there. That's very peculiar to me.

Why don't they kill themselves? They're telling us death is nothing to be afraid of and benefits us hugely....yet they seem reluctant to die. Actions speak louder than words.

I believe that there is some element of consciousness in most if not all living things. I also believe that consciousness is at the heart of reality and that all of us ultimately come from this core consciousness. — Sam26

From a philosophical perspective, it might be instructive to consider the Buddhist view of re-birth. It is often assumed that 'Buddhists believe in reincarnation', but it is not actually true. In the very earliest Buddhist texts, the Buddha firmly rejects the idea of there being a soul, self or person who migrates from one life to another. Yet at the same time, the Buddha is said to have insight into the fate of beings after death, and it is widely accepted that beings are reborn in one of the 'six realms of existence' after physical death.

It's a hard idea to communicate in a few words, but the basic point is that beings propogate causes during this life, which will give rise to, or manifest as, living beings in future lives. Even though there isn't a kernel of unchanging personality which continues or migrates from one life to another, when a child is born, that child will manifest inherited tendencies, proclivities, inclinations, and so on, which were set in motion in previous lives, as a result of previous actions (or karma). There is a term in some Buddhist schools, 'citta-santāna', translated as 'mind-stream' which seeks to convey this idea. It is sometimes linked to a teaching associated with later (Mahāyāna) Buddhism, of the 'storehouse consciousness' (alayavijnana) which can be compared to a 'collective unconscious'. So the person is more like a process, and indeed there have been comparisons between Buddhism and Western 'process philosophy', which is customarily said to have begun with Heraclitus.

As to whether this implies that beings 'originate from core consciousness', Buddhism doesn't generally teach in those terms, although East Asian teachings of 'Buddha Nature' might be interpreted along those lines.

For a variety of interpretations from various teachers, see Buddhist Teachings on Re-birth.
Also: citta santāna
Alayavijnana
Six Realms of Existence
Buddha Nature

Why don't they kill themselves? They're telling us death is nothing to be afraid of and benefits us hugely....yet they seem reluctant to die. Actions speak louder than words. — Clearbury

:up: :up:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/916613

@Sam26 :eyes:

But they're not synonyms - one is a state of a thing and one is the thing itself. But anyway, I suppose that's just a terminological issue (actually, I think it reflects the 'mind is the brain' view currently dominant, where it is consciousness that is what is distinctive about the brain, as opposed to there being a soul that has the consciousness). — Clearbury

I'm afraid I have to disagree with the dominant view. The mind as I use it is, for all practical purposes, is synonymous with consciousness. Although there may be differences in some contexts, especially if you're a materialist or physicalist. Also, I generally don't use the term soul in reference to that which survives death. I believe consciousness is more accurate.

There are two types of NDEs that you seem to be conflating. There are those that involve floating about in the room. Those are the ones that, supposedly, others can corroborate - though I think there's no hard evidence of such corroboration. Plus, just as we incorporate alarm sounds into dreams, nothing stops the same happening in these scenarios. — Clearbury

Actually, I'm not conflating anything. I've described three kinds of NDEs (category 1, 2, and 3) pointing out the differences between each of these NDEs. I don't know why you would say supposedly corroborate, the data on this is overwhelming. As I've pointed out it's the same data that a detective uses when trying to confirm or disconfirm testimony, you interview the people involved. It's not very difficult and it's done all the time. I find it a bit strange that people just dismiss this information. Although you did acknowledge it with some hesitation. I don't know what you mean by "hard evidence?" Maybe you mean scientific evidence, but this is something I've also addressed, viz., by pointing out that epistemology is not limited scientific evidence. This seems to be a common misunderstanding of many that post in this thread, and even when they do acknowledge it, they seem to forget just how powerful good testimonial evidence is.

I'm not saying there aren't some similarities between dreams and veridical experiences. I'm saying that we don't corroborate hallucinations, delusions, or dreams in the same way that we do veridical experiences. The way these terms (hallucinations, delusions, and dreams) are used in our everyday language clearly separates them in a significant way from veridical experiences. On the other hand, NDEs are being corroborated all the time, and if they can't, then I'm skeptical of them, or at least I set it aside. I'm not saying that all NDEs can be corroborated, but a significant number can.

Then there are the NDEs where people seem to have the experience of travelling to a different realm. Those are not corroborated. There's a similarity among these experiences, but there's a lot of similarity between dreams too, and the similarity does not seem significantly greater. — Clearbury

When we look at the testimonial evidence of NDEs we have to examine it the same way we would examine any testimonial evidence. First, again, is corroboration, which gives us an objective way to verify the testimony. Even NDEs that incorporate traveling through a tunnel, seeing loved ones, having a life review, have been corroborated. What I mean is that if you can objectively corroborate at least part of their story, then you can make an inference based on how consistent it is with other stories that see and hear generally the same things. So, although you can't corroborate some of the story that doesn't mean we don't have other means of testing the story. For example, let's say someone tells you of their trip to Alaska and part of their story can be corroborated and other parts can't, we generally would accept the testimony as accurate, especially if there are other stories that match with theirs. So, although we can't corroborate all of it, there is enough consistency with other stories that allows us to accept their story as truthful or veridical. Do people sometimes lie, of course, but are all these people lying? Analyzing testimonial evidence takes time and patience. It must be compared with a lot of data. I've spent a lot of time analyzing the testimonial evidence and I generally find it to be accurate. There're two main reasons that people reject these stories: First, they're wedded to a particular worldview. Second, they don't have all the facts/information.

So why don't they kill themselves and encourage others to do likewise? That is what we would typically do if we find a beautiful place - we try and revisit it and encourage others to do likewise. These people claim to know, in a way that the rest of us do not, what lies in wait for us the other side of death. And they claim it is wonderful. Yet they seem reluctant - more reluctant, if anything, than the general population - to go back there. That's very peculiar to me. — Clearbury

I've read over 5000 accounts of NDEs, and what you'll find is that many people who have an NDE don't want to come back to this life, but they're told they must return because their objectives for coming here aren't complete. What I've found is that we enter into some agreement before choosing to have these human experiences, and it's important that we finish our task. Also, those who commit suicide often find that they've made a huge mistake, i.e., they're just going to have to come back again and do it all over again. So, it's not as simple as you might think and killing yourself is not an escape.

From a philosophical perspective, it might be instructive to consider the Buddhist view — Wayfarer

I have found that nothing gives us as clear a picture as NDEs. The evidence is much stronger than any religious point of view. I find that most religious have it generally incorrect. There are interesting ideas in the Buddhist tradition, but, again, if you want some answers about the afterlife, then NDEs give the most information.

You also haven't addressed my evidence that thsoe who have the latter NDEs don't really believe in them. — Clearbury

I don't think that follows. We have a natural inclination to keep on living, so this could get in the way of suicide. In addition, those who are religious may also believe that suicide would "kill" their chances of a happy afterlife. So I can accept that at least some of the people who've had these vivid dreams, in circumstances in which they are near death, actually believe these illusions are real.

The unique vividness of a near-death dream may be related to "terminal lucidity" that Alzheimer's often experience as they near death. In their case, it is a sudden, brief burst of lucidity as they near death. The physical changes that take place in a brain nearing death cause both.

I don't think that follows. We have a natural inclination to keep on living, so this could get in the way of suicide. — Relativist

We have a natural inclination not to want to eat something that looks unappetizing. But if we found out that it actually tastes delicious, then we'd go back and eat some more. We can and regularly do overcome natural inclinations.

The point about religious convictions doesn't apply, as the point is that those who have had NDEs are not more likely to commit suicide than those who don't. And it would be peculiar indeed to suppose that the only NDEs that count as evidence are those had by those with religious convictions.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with the dominant view. The mind as I use it is, for all practical purposes, is synonymous with consciousness. — Sam26

So when I am unconscious I disappear? Consciousness is a state. It's not a thing. It's a state. Water is wet (normally). Wetness is a state. it's not a thing. 'Water is wet' doesn't mean 'water and wetness are the same'. It's the 'is' of predication. Water 'has' wetness. Minds 'have' consciousness. My mind is conscious right now - that doesn't mean it 'is' consciousness. It 'has' consciousness. That's why they're called 'states of consciousness'. They're states, not objects.

When I go to sleep I - the mind - become unconscious. I don't vanish. A new person does not emerge in me every morning. Sleep is not death. I can't escape yesterday's me's responsibilities and debts just by going to sleep. Why? Because I am the same person - the same mind. I was conscious yesterday and I am conscious today, but there was a time in between when I wasn't. there was a break in consciousness, but not a break in me. Unconscious me is not just a lump of meat. It isn't ok to destroy sleeping me. If you destroy sleeping me you killed me - me - rather than simply destroyed the potential venue for a new person.

Anyway, this is just a terminological issue: minds are bearers of conscious states. Consciousness is a state, not an object. Reality doesn't care what labels we put on things, however. So it really doesn't matter, I mention it only because it can cause confusion to conflate a state of an object with an object, and because - ironically - the tendency to conflate consciousness with minds is symptomatic of the very naturalism that precludes the possibility of life after death.

I don't know why you would say supposedly corroborate, the data on this is overwhelming — Sam26

Because it hasn't been gathered in a scientific setting. We don't know that things were not mentioned to the patient about the operation afterwards. It's all too flimsy. And that's exactly how we would treat such testimonial evidence in other contexts.

The person who is reporting these experiences almost died. That's not a normal state. The idea that a person's sensory faculties would be operating more reliably under those circumstances rather than less is prima facie absurd. That's like thinking that getting drunk improves one's ability to perceive the world. How would we treat a drunk's testimony? With the greatest of caution. That is how it is reasonable to treat the testimony of those whose brains have been starved of oxygen. Whatever experiences they had when their brains were in that kind of state cannot reasonably be accorded any great probative value.

Note too, that the testimony is 'about' those experiences. If I say that I saw a giant pink bunny while on a hallucinogen, then trusting my testimony does not involve trusting that there was actually a giant pink bunny in the room with me, but trusting that that was how things appeared to me. So, trusting the testimony of those who have had NDEs does not involve according their experiences probative value, rather it involves accepting that things seemed to them as they report.

Again, there is no double standard here. That's exactly how we'd treat the testimonial evidence of someone who was on drugs at the time they had the experiences, or was blind drunk at the time. These are people whose brains were starved of oxygen at the time it seemed to them they were having the experiences in question. So why should their testimonial evidence be treated any differently from the testimonial evidence of someone who was on drugs at the time of their experiences? We can trust that things appeared to them as they say, but we cannot reasonably trust that this is good evidence that this is how things actually were.

I do accept that this may not apply to the experiencer themselves - I accept that those who have actually had NDEs may be reasonable in believing their experiences to be accurate, but I don't think outsiders, such as myself, are being unreasonable in being skeptical about their accuracy (not skeptical that this is how things seemed to the person in question, but skeptical about the veridicality of the experiences being described).

I've read over 5000 accounts of NDEs, and what you'll find is that many people who have an NDE don't want to come back to this life, but they're told they must return because their objectives for coming here aren't complete. — Sam26

I acknowledge that this would explain why they don't commit suicide.

The evidence is much stronger than any religious point of view. — Sam26

It's a shame you can only see it through your pre-concieved notion of what a 'religious point of view' must be. Buddhism is alone amongst religions in its treatment of the nature of consciousness, which is what I was responding to, and provides a coherent philosophical framework within which NDE's might be interpreted.

A new person does not emerge in me every morning.... — Clearbury

You're sure about that? We're all constantly changing, day by day, moment by moment. There is continuity, but also change. Many of the cells in your body are renewed regularly. That is one of the fascinating things about the nature of identity.

It's a shame you can only see it through your pre-concieved notion of what a 'religious point of view' must be. — Wayfarer

It's not a preconceived notion, it's a conclusion arrived at through more than 45 years of study. I was very religious for years.

Fair enough. As I've said many times in this thread, I think research into children with memories of previous lives is corroborative in some ways to NDE reports. Both indicate modes of being beyond physical birth and death.

You're sure about that? We're all constantly changing, day by day, moment by moment. There is continuity, but also change. Many of the cells in your body are renewed regularly. That is one of the fascinating things about the nature of identity. — Wayfarer

Yes. As is everyone else. Do you think you die when you go to sleep?

Yes. As is everyone else. Do you think you die when you go to sleep? — Clearbury

I think that would rather over-dramatize it, although I do recall Alan Watts saying that dying is like going to sleep without waking up the next day.

I'm extremely reticent to speculate about 'the life hereafter', however I have a firm conviction that our life overflows the bounds of physical birth and death, if I could put it that way.

Fair enough. As I've said many times in this thread, I think research into children with memories of previous lives is corroborative in some ways to NDE reports. Both indicate modes of being beyond physical birth and death. — Wayfarer

There is some evidence that supports previous lives, but I don't know how strong it is because I haven't studied it as closely as NDEs. In terms of numbers, it's not as common as NDEs.

Ian Stevenson, who we have discussed previously in this thread, provided studies of somewhere around 2,700 cases in his two-volume Reincarnation and Biology. However as you will probably understand, his research is not well-regarded by mainstream science, as reincarnation is a scientific and religious taboo in Western culture. He's regarded by many as a crank.