Evidence that Consciousness Survives Bodily Death?

[Sy Borg]

You can induct until the cows come home but it's still not proof.

[Sam26]

Where did I say that an inductive argument is a proof? The deductive argument was the proof, but not the main argument. For some reason I find that people are not careful about what they read, and make statements that fit what they want to believe, instead of trying to understand what the person is actually saying. Moreover, some of the remarks in that thread were just about as biased as one can get. I didn't find any of the responses to be well thought out, just the opposite. They were almost childlike.

[Burning ghost]

Take a look at a thread anout the Gettier Problem if we’re too “childish” for you.

Your argument is logically valid. You imply that it is also sound. I simply said it wasn’t and that if you think it is you’re plainly wrong because of the obscure use of language in the premises. Calling people “childish” is hardly saying anything.

Do you think your argument is SOUND?

[JamesOfSeattle]

Two two things here: First, one of the consistencies of the testimonial evidence is that people meet deceased relatives, friends, acquaintances, etc., that have been deceased for years.

Exactly how consistent is this part? 50%? 5%?

Second, if someone's heart stops beating and there is no measurable brain activity, then I agree with many of the doctors, they're dead.

I’m pretty sure being not dead after being dead is miracle territory. Again, pretty sure that most doctors would say that if you are resuscitated, you weren’t “really dead”. Also, when you say there is no measurable brain activity, how is that being measured? What percentage of these cases are having their brain activity measured when the NDE happens?

... even if you want to stick with that definition, there is plenty of evidence in the testimonials that demonstrates that we survive as who we are after we're dead.

What kind of evidence would that be? I still don’t see evidence that consciousness survives more than, say, two hours after “death”.

*

[A_Seagull]

There hasn't been one argument against the inductive argument that has come close to countering the conclusion. Most of these responses, especially the ones against the logic of the arguments are from people (Burning ghost for e.g.) who don't seem to have a basic understanding of logic. The responses are more akin to opinions than good arguments.

The inductive argument is strong based on the criteria of good inductive arguments. Based on the strength of the inductive argument, I will make the claim that, "I know the conclusion is true." Not only do I know it, but I know that I know it. I'll wait for some better replies before I respond again, unless there is a good reason to respond sooner.

You have not presented any evidence that consciousness survives death. All the evidence you have relates to what people say after they have had a NDE. And that evidence points just as much , if not more so, to hallucinations and perhaps delirium following a NDE.

[Burning ghost]

Seagull -

To be fair that is a little harsh. The reports from people who’ve taken DMT are relevant and quite puzzling. I believe a few members on this site have also reported what I would call ASC’s (altered states of consciousness) myself included.

There is something significant to be investigated here, and the lack of research into psychedelics - and a means of making objective studies of the subject given the dangers involved - make this a rich ground for speculation and theory crafting.

Sam has avoided my very direct question. I asked if Sam thought the argument presented was SOUND rather than merely VALID. If Sam believes the former it is merely a belief and one Sam is entitled too; whether or not Sam wishes to get into the various epistemoc problems around such claims or not we’ll just have to wait and see.

The whole JTB and business with Gettier, Frege etc. might be a productive route to take with claims made within the OP?

[A_Seagull]

Seagull -

To be fair that is a little harsh. The reports from people who’ve taken DMT are relevant and quite puzzling. I believe a few members on this site have also reported what I would call ASC’s (altered states of consciousness) myself included.

There is something significant to be investigated here, and the lack of research into psychedelics - and a means of making objective studies of the subject given the dangers involved - make this a rich ground for speculation and theory crafting.

Sam has avoided my very direct question. I asked if Sam thought the argument presented was SOUND rather than merely VALID. If Sam believes the former it is merely a belief and one Sam is entitled too; whether or not Sam wishes to get into the various epistemoc problems around such claims or not we’ll just have to wait and see.

The whole JTB and business with Gettier, Frege etc. might be a productive route to take with claims made within the OP?

It is not a mater of JTB or playing around with words trying to achieve a configuration that either 'proves' or 'disproves' the proposition.

It is a matter of compiling all the relevant information and searching for a theory which best fits the available data. And typically a 'best fit' theory will not be one that includes any sort of magic or impenetrable black boxes; they are only to be incorporated when no other explanation seems possible.

And so far the only evidence presented is that of people relating their thoughts after some traumatic or similar experience. And that would undoubtedly be best explained by some form of lapse of reason or halucinogetic experience.

[Sy Borg]

Your argument is logically valid. You imply that it is also sound.

All he's saying is that anecdotal evidence, if sufficiently voluminous and in/consistent, convinces him 100%.

It convinces me too, but not 100%. As Seagull says, it may be brain dynamics. Like the OP, I personally think there's more to NDEs than just dreaming, and for the same reasons (and have said so plenty of times on these forums over the years). However, in terms of philosophy and the discipline that it requires, those reasons are not enough for certainty. To "make the claim that the conclusion is true" is not valid, but the evidence does perhaps provide some comfort and certainly warrants continued investigation, although the area is notoriously problematic to study.

[Burning ghost]

Seagull -

To be fair that is a little harsh. The reports from people who’ve taken DMT are relevant and quite puzzling. I believe a few members on this site have also reported what I would call ASC’s (altered states of consciousness) myself included.

There is something significant to be investigated here, and the lack of research into psychedelics - and a means of making objective studies of the subject given the dangers involved - make this a rich ground for speculation and theory crafting.

Sam has avoided my very direct question. I asked if Sam thought the argument presented was SOUND rather than merely VALID. If Sam believes the former it is merely a belief and one Sam is entitled too; whether or not Sam wishes to get into the various epistemoc problems around such claims or not we’ll just have to wait and see.

The whole JTB and business with Gettier, Frege etc. might be a productive route to take with claims made within the OP?

It is not a mater of JTB or playing around with words trying to achieve a configuration that either 'proves' or 'disproves' the proposition.

It is a matter of compiling all the relevant information and searching for a theory which best fits the available data. And typically a 'best fit' theory will not be one that includes any sort of magic or impenetrable black boxes; they are only to be incorporated when no other explanation seems possible.

And so far the only evidence presented is that of people relating their thoughts after some traumatic or similar experience. And that would undoubtedly be best explained by some form of lapse of reason or halucinogetic experience.

All I was saying is that WORDS matter in logic. If you wish to dismiss his words fine. I simply implore Sam to refine the words used. The words used are “black boxes.” That is the issue with the premises. Words are not completelt “impenetrable” though.

Where does consciousness go after death? I believe it just simply “goes.”

This is a philosophy forum so it is VERY much a matter of “playing around with words.”

[A_Seagull]

It is not a mater of JTB or playing around with words trying to achieve a configuration that either 'proves' or 'disproves' the proposition.

It is a matter of compiling all the relevant information and searching for a theory which best fits the available data. And typically a 'best fit' theory will not be one that includes any sort of magic or impenetrable black boxes; they are only to be incorporated when no other explanation seems possible.

And so far the only evidence presented is that of people relating their thoughts after some traumatic or similar experience. And that would undoubtedly be best explained by some form of lapse of reason or halucinogetic experience.

All I was saying is that WORDS matter in logic. If you wish to dismiss his words fine. I simply implore Sam to refine the words used. The words used are “black boxes.” That is the issue with the premises. Words are not completelt “impenetrable” though.

Where does consciousness go after death? I believe it just simply “goes.”

This is a philosophy forum so it is VERY much a matter of “playing around with words.”

It is only a small subset of philosophy that plays around with words, ,much of the rest uses words for clear communication.

[Burning ghost]

That “small subset” being those interested in the application of logic to language.

[Burning ghost]

Greta -

He’s using technical jargon to call his view “valid.” It is “valid” but certainly not “sound.” This is the issue I always have with logic in general; we can say it is true that it is valid but not that it is a valid truth (different meanings.)

[A_Seagull]

That “small subset” being those interested in the application of logic to language.

Quite so. However language does not lend itself to logical analysis. If you want to treat words as strings of abstract symbols , you can apply logic but then any meaning (relevance to the real world) is lost. If you want to treat words as representations of ideas then logical analysis cannot be applied as the form of the ideas remains opaque. Ideas are complex objects and cannot be treated as children's building blocks and used to make simple logical structures. Though admittedly that is what some logicians often try to do; but then the results are, at best, highly dubious.

[Sam26]

I've been reading over the last few responses, and some of the posts are raising some good questions, but suffice it to say that I didn't think the first responses were very good. In my not so humble opinion.

I'll give you some of my background. Most of my studies are geared in two directions. First, I've spent most of my time studying epistemology, especially as it relates to Wittgenstein's 'On Certainty.' Second, I have also been studying NDEs for many years, and it's not that I've just read many accounts (thousands), and it's not that I've read many books on the subject, I've been analyzing the data. I've also been thinking about the data in terms of DMT, and the experiences of those who have smoked or injected it. And since I'm a philosopher, I thought I would analyze the testimonial evidence in terms of what we can claim to know.

Obviously, in terms of what we believe (the posters) there are going to be epistemological differences about what constitutes knowledge. My view is the traditional view of knowledge as justified true belief. I believe that generally this is a good definition. I don't think the Gettier problem, which was raised by Burning Ghost, are counter-examples of JTB. Moreover, I don't think Gettier did anything to hurt the JTB definition. It's true that some philosophers have bought into the Gettiers counter-examples as being examples that damage JTB, but I'm not one of them. At this point I'm not going to give an explanation as to why I think the Gettier's examples fail to diminish JTB, only to say that I don't agree with the assessment. Later we can discuss Gettier as it pertains to JTB.

I try to be as precise as possible, when using terms when I'm posting, but that is dependent on how much time I have to respond, and a variety of other factors going on in my life. Sometimes when we post in these forums, we'll respond quickly without spending the time needed to check what we've posted. The argument I posted at the beginning of this thread, is, for the most part, one that I've thought through. However, I am trying to refine it. I've had a lot of time to set up the argument, so it's not something that I pulled out of midair.

Also, one of the reasons I posted the argument is that I've started writing a book on the subject of NDEs, and what we can properly conclude from the testimonial evidence. And I'm trying to get ideas from posters, especially trained philosophers, as to the strength of the argument. However, how one sees the strength of the argument will depend on one's epistemology.

Finally, I take a Wittgensteinian view of meaning, viz., that we can discover more about what a word means by looking at the logic behind the various uses of that word. So, when it comes to knowledge, it's my position that there are a variety of uses of the word know, i.e., we come to have knowledge in a variety of ways. Moreover, use doesn't always dictate meaning, as Wittgenstein said, but use gives us a better picture of what it is to mean something.

I will try to respond to all of the posts, but if I miss one or two, or more, please don't take it personally.

Sam

[Sam26]

Take a look at a thread anout the Gettier Problem if we’re too “childish” for you.

Your argument is logically valid. You imply that it is also sound. I simply said it wasn’t and that if you think it is you’re plainly wrong because of the obscure use of language in the premises. Calling people “childish” is hardly saying anything.

Do you think your argument is SOUND?

I am familiar with Gettier, as I mentioned in the previous post. I will post something about Gettier in the next post.

First, my main argument is the inductive argument, and the subject of validity you addressed was in reference to the deductive are, at least that's my assumption based on your concentration on the deductive argument. Your argument against the soundness of my premise is that it's plainly wrong, because you think the use of language is obscure. I would hardly call this much of an argument. I think you are referring to my use of the word veridical, which is not an obscure word, you may not hear it much, but that's because most people usually don't talk about veridical experiences, no more than most people talk about quantum entanglement. However, psychologists and neuroscientists talk about these kinds of experiences, among others, and the ideas of a veridical experience goes to the heart of the matter. All veridical means, as used here, is that the perception is a direct perception as it exists, i.e., that it's not a hallucination, illusion, dream, etc. This is what I'm claiming, viz., that the experiences are veridical experiences, not just a kind of hallucination.

As a philosopher I try to choose my words carefully, especially as they pertain to logical arguments. When I refer to arguments, I'm referring to the arguments used in symbolic logic, i.e., I'm trying to follow the standard rules of good inductive and deductive arguments.

So far though Ghost you haven't given a good argument against my main argument. I understand that you don't believe the premises are true, but saying that isn't an argument. To say that I used an obscure word is not an argument against the truth of the premises, unless the word is used incorrectly in some way. Moreover, if the word is used incorrectly, then you have to demonstrate how that use has made the proposition untrue. There is no mystery to the word veridical as applied in the argument.