The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

Evidence that Consciousness Survives Bodily Death?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 2015
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Evidence that Consciousness Survives Bodily Death?

Post by Belindi » January 13th, 2019, 9:31 am

Greta wrote:
Subjective effects suggest ontology, but our nervous systems are far from the final word. For all we know, much more of what we think is reality is a perspective effect than we realise. After all, our true reality is hurtling through space at over two million kms per hour, but we only know it by inference. Nor do we sense relativity''s purported "block time".
I agree , and particularly like your veiled reference to eternity (I inferred) in your last sentence. I do need to be reminded from time to time that we cannot know from experience what eternity is like. I'm claiming that "our true reality" as per the scenario you imagined is well within a materialist (physicalist) theory of being : whereas the OP's tone implies Cartesian dualism.

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 439
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm

Re: Evidence that Consciousness Survives Bodily Death?

Post by Count Lucanor » January 13th, 2019, 2:25 pm

Greta wrote:
January 13th, 2019, 2:10 am

We know that the kind of consciousness found in living organisms is only found in living organisms. That's all.
But a lot of things stem from this basic fact, because that consciousness we find in this world is the one we can deal with, study and describe.
Greta wrote:
January 13th, 2019, 2:10 am
They may be other kinds of consciousness that we don't know about.
There may be...quite different from "there are clear indisputable signs that there is..." It's just filling the knowledge gap with unlimited entities, none of which would require a rational justification in our current knowledge, not even that there's a causal order in the universe. That's what "anything goes" is.
Greta wrote:
January 13th, 2019, 2:10 am
Vagueness is necessary unless we are going to assume that which we don't actually know.
Vagueness is allowable up until one point, but it is not necessary all the way through, nor sufficient. We want to move away from vagueness, we want to see the light. Let it be acknowledged that wandering around in vagueness and darkness forever and ever is also an intellectual project.
Greta wrote:
January 13th, 2019, 2:10 am
I am not saying to abandon what we have learned and never did, but we need to be humble about it because the reality has so often turned out to be at odds with our assumptions.
Yes, I agree, but I think science stays humble when it introduces in its core the methods for refuting its own claims. Most of the time, it was this methodological enterprise that refuted old assumptions, it came from science itself.
Greta wrote:
January 13th, 2019, 2:10 am
I don't see the problem with idealism, as long as it's presented as possibilities and not established fact and noting that not all possibilities are equal.
I mean substance idealism and I do find it quite problematic, precisely when presented as possibilities, which opens the Pandora Box to all kinds of supernatural beings without any support in rational and empirical findings.
Greta wrote:
January 13th, 2019, 2:10 am
Count Lucanor wrote:
January 13th, 2019, 12:21 am
"Open mind" seems like a nice term, shielded from any criticism, but it has become patent that when you say "open mind" you're actually advocating epistemological agnosticism. It's the fallacy of "anything goes".
No, that's for flat Earthers. I'm not speaking about a fallacy but a truism - that a lot more is going on in reality than we realise, or can even imagine.
The correct truism is: something more is going on that we realize or imagine. The nature of that "something more" we should at first assume is compatible with the nature of what we do realize and imagine, therefore we are obliged to think of these possibilities under the terms of our current understanding of reality. For whoever ever claimed that there's a reality incompatible with nature as we know it, or that there may be such a domain, by definition that reality would be unintelligible, completely out of scope of our inquiries and research, it would be an affirmation that could not be explored any further. If it is claimed that the "something more" is inherently related to the reality we live in, but that we are yet to understand the relational links, the focus still will be on the known processes that are affected by these relations. Going back to the puzzle analogy, anyone can start to assemble pieces in a completely blank space floating somewhere in the puzzle, but first these pieces on their own must match, and preferably sooner than later they must match the part where a foundational structure has already been revealed.
Greta wrote:
January 13th, 2019, 2:10 am
I am not yet ancient yet I remember being taught that when I was young and finding it strange because animals sure seemed conscious to me, if oddly food obsessed. I think I mentioned earlier on the forum seeing a man at the markets wrapping a live chicken in a newspaper for a customer when I was a child. That makes clear the assumptions made at the time about the consciousness of what are now known to be intelligent, friendly and playful animals. Yet the old beliefs remains, as seen in the harsh processing methods of factory farming.
I'm not sure if we're talking about stated disciplinary facts or just popular culture conventions. When I was a kid, mother used to take us to the public market and there we witnessed live chickens being sacrificed for sale. It was grisly, surely because we thought that the poor animals suffered, although one accepted it was an inevitable and necessary fact of life. Ironically, in those market trips mother sometimes bought us little chicks on sale that we brought home and cared for them as pets. When their deaths came about or some tragedy was imminent upon them, our perspective was completely different. Yet, chickens are still sacrificed and my relative indifference to their fate hasn't really changed. I don't think the treatment of animals in our society has everything to do with us thinking they are conscious or not.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7745
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Evidence that Consciousness Survives Bodily Death?

Post by Greta » January 13th, 2019, 10:44 pm

Count Lucanor wrote:
January 13th, 2019, 2:25 pm
Greta wrote:
January 13th, 2019, 2:10 am
Vagueness is necessary unless we are going to assume that which we don't actually know.
Vagueness is allowable up until one point, but it is not necessary all the way through, nor sufficient. We want to move away from vagueness, we want to see the light. Let it be acknowledged that wandering around in vagueness and darkness forever and ever is also an intellectual project.
To avoid vagueness all one needs do is exclusively restrict one's thoughts to that which is already known, and then operate as if that is the total of reality.

Count Lucanor wrote:
January 13th, 2019, 2:25 pm
Greta wrote:
January 13th, 2019, 2:10 am
I am not saying to abandon what we have learned and never did, but we need to be humble about it because the reality has so often turned out to be at odds with our assumptions.
Yes, I agree, but I think science stays humble when it introduces in its core the methods for refuting its own claims. Most of the time, it was this methodological enterprise that refuted old assumptions, it came from science itself.
Science is fine, as are most practitioners. The problem comes from science journalists and fans who too often treat science's provisional findings as gospel. Poor Kant. His insights appear to be now largely only confined to scientists and mysterians, while fans of both science and religion throw around certainties as if what we perceived was actual reality.

Count Lucanor wrote:
January 13th, 2019, 2:25 pm
Greta wrote:
January 13th, 2019, 2:10 am
I don't see the problem with idealism, as long as it's presented as possibilities and not established fact and noting that not all possibilities are equal.
I mean substance idealism and I do find it quite problematic, precisely when presented as possibilities, which opens the Pandora Box to all kinds of supernatural beings without any support in rational and empirical findings.
Again, you frame in the political rather than philosophical.

Do you know how much I care about undisciplined thinkers who believe in supernatural entities without grounding? Not a bit. They can have their Pandora's Box if that works for them. I take Haldane's quote seriously.

* Ultimately in this thread I am arguing in favour of JB Haldane's quote, "My own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose". That is exactly the point I am promoting. You appear not to take that idea seriously. You clearly see reality as something about which we have gained a strong over all understanding with just some details to sort out. I say that there's a good chance that we still understand diddly-squat.

Count Lucanor wrote:
January 13th, 2019, 2:25 pm
Greta wrote:
January 13th, 2019, 2:10 am
No, that's for flat Earthers. I'm not speaking about a fallacy but a truism - that a lot more is going on in reality than we realise, or can even imagine.
The correct truism is: something more is going on that we realize or imagine.
Actually, the correct truism was as stated because it was my thought, not a quote. It seems that the person you quoted appropriated my idea ;)

Count Lucanor wrote:
January 13th, 2019, 2:25 pm
The nature of that "something more" we should at first assume is compatible with the nature of what we do realize and imagine, therefore we are obliged to think of these possibilities under the terms of our current understanding of reality. For whoever ever claimed that there's a reality incompatible with nature as we know it, or that there may be such a domain, by definition that reality would be unintelligible, completely out of scope of our inquiries and research, it would be an affirmation that could not be explored any further.
There's a great deal of reality that is "completely out of scope of our inquiries and research", that is, the (probably billions or trillions of) galaxies so far away that the universe won't last long enough for their light to reach us. Is it pointless to note that that reality outside of our capacities to interrogate exists? I find it quite a helpful and grounding idea, keeping us from believing that we understand and control nature. In truth, we are just a part of nature that knows a bit more what's going on than its peers.

Count Lucanor wrote:
January 13th, 2019, 2:25 pm
If it is claimed that the "something more" is inherently related to the reality we live in, but that we are yet to understand the relational links, the focus still will be on the known processes that are affected by these relations. Going back to the puzzle analogy, anyone can start to assemble pieces in a completely blank space floating somewhere in the puzzle, but first these pieces on their own must match, and preferably sooner than later they must match the part where a foundational structure has already been revealed.
I once had that faith too. Then I came to understand, even after all this time, just how clueless medical science is in terms of understanding systemic problems, even the very most mundane issues - viruses, arthritis, addiction, mental illness and depression and so forth. That is not because medical researchers are stupid or that they have not built an incredible body of knowledge. It is because reality is so integrated and complex that we can only intuitively (arguably) understand it, bolstered with the various disconnected islands of knowledge that have been accumulated.

For instance, I am wracked with rapidly worsening arthritis and all that's on offer are steroid and cortisone injections, surgery, anti-inflammatories or painkillers. All bandaid cures, not a single clue as to the underlying causes for this tendency when people decades older have no such issues. Yet this is so basic and fundamental and it remains a black box.

The mind, consciousness, space - how often do we mistake knowledge for understanding? We truly don't have a clue in terms of understanding the interrelated processes and systems of reality - what they are actually doing (which is why we claim reality is meaningless - it all just looks like fairly unconnected pointless processes that happen here and there). We keep collecting the dots but tend not to join them. Why? Specialisation, siloing and the fact that knowledge is more profitable than understanding.

Count Lucanor wrote:
January 13th, 2019, 2:25 pm
Greta wrote:
January 13th, 2019, 2:10 am
I am not yet ancient yet I remember being taught that when I was young and finding it strange because animals sure seemed conscious to me, if oddly food obsessed. I think I mentioned earlier on the forum seeing a man at the markets wrapping a live chicken in a newspaper for a customer when I was a child. That makes clear the assumptions made at the time about the consciousness of what are now known to be intelligent, friendly and playful animals. Yet the old beliefs remains, as seen in the harsh processing methods of factory farming.
I'm not sure if we're talking about stated disciplinary facts or just popular culture conventions. When I was a kid, mother used to take us to the public market and there we witnessed live chickens being sacrificed for sale. It was grisly, surely because we thought that the poor animals suffered, although one accepted it was an inevitable and necessary fact of life. Ironically, in those market trips mother sometimes bought us little chicks on sale that we brought home and cared for them as pets. When their deaths came about or some tragedy was imminent upon them, our perspective was completely different. Yet, chickens are still sacrificed and my relative indifference to their fate hasn't really changed. I don't think the treatment of animals in our society has everything to do with us thinking they are conscious or not.
I think you have skirted the surface of the issue. The fact is that the man grabbed a living, breathing, squawking, terrified chook and wrapped it in newspaper. Why weren't the birds killed or at least put in a bag? Why did the customer not protest at the barbarity?

That is nothing to do with "an inevitable and necessary fact of life". Nor is it about the character of the people involved. If they understood the intensity of suffering they were inflicting then they would not have done it. However, they didn't comprehend. They figured that pain and suffering was different for other animals, which is simply not true. That's what we were taught in science, and I saw scientists stating this view even to the 2000s that it was uncertain whether other species felt anything or if it was just reflex actions. We are so far behind the curve as regards consciousness it's not funny.

Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 2015
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Evidence that Consciousness Survives Bodily Death?

Post by Belindi » January 14th, 2019, 8:48 am

Greta wrote:
The fact is that the man grabbed a living, breathing, squawking, terrified chook and wrapped it in newspaper. Why weren't the birds killed or at least put in a bag? Why did the customer not protest at the barbarity?
Despite that this is philosophy forum I won't let this pass unnoticed as an expression of your deep feeling, and I'd like you to know that I am horrified too and share your repugnance. You are not alone Greta!

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7745
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Evidence that Consciousness Survives Bodily Death?

Post by Greta » January 14th, 2019, 9:07 am

Belindi wrote:
January 14th, 2019, 8:48 am
Greta wrote:
The fact is that the man grabbed a living, breathing, squawking, terrified chook and wrapped it in newspaper. Why weren't the birds killed or at least put in a bag? Why did the customer not protest at the barbarity?
Despite that this is philosophy forum I won't let this pass unnoticed as an expression of your deep feeling, and I'd like you to know that I am horrified too and share your repugnance. You are not alone Greta!
It was over fifty years ago but the image burned into my mind as one of the saddest things I've seen with my own eyes.

Yet people really did believe that other animals didn't feel as we do, that it was "just reflexes". People were very certain about it too. The idea of other animals feeling strongly tended to be dismissed as a romanticised anthropomorphism, undisciplined sentimentality.

How much harm did that over-certain assumption do and why do we keep making the same mistakes of replacing the unknown with unproven assumptions rather than, as should be the case, speculations to be tested?

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 439
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm

Re: Evidence that Consciousness Survives Bodily Death?

Post by Count Lucanor » January 15th, 2019, 9:53 pm

Greta wrote:To avoid vagueness all one needs do is exclusively restrict one's thoughts to that which is already known, and then operate as if that is the total of reality
That seems to be a static on/off approach. Why not move forward, progressively, taking what you have and use it as a base for new discoveries?
Greta wrote: Science is fine, as are most practitioners. The problem comes from science journalists and fans who too often treat science's provisional findings as gospel. Poor Kant. His insights appear to be now largely only confined to scientists and mysterians, while fans of both science and religion throw around certainties as if what we perceived was actual reality.
To think of our current knowledge as provisional is fine, but provisional is not the same as uncertain. What we don't know, we just don't know, and what we think we know is divided in different degrees of certainties. We are pretty sure the Sun heats the Earth and there are methane lakes in Titan, but not knowing other things about the solar system or the universe doesn't make automatically the Sun, the Earth or Titan hypothetical, uncertain realities, and it surely doesn't make any theory that dismisses the science that gave us that knowledge, just as credible.
Greta wrote: Do you know how much I care about undisciplined thinkers who believe in supernatural entities without grounding? Not a bit. They can have their Pandora's Box if that works for them.
Isn't that the whole point, that you give a free pass to undisciplined thinking? What do you think feeds the gospel seekers? Undisciplined thinking gave us gods, but it also gave us NDE narratives about the supernatural realms where those gods use to dwell.
Greta wrote: Ultimately in this thread I am arguing in favour of JB Haldane's quote, "My own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose". That is exactly the point I am promoting. You appear not to take that idea seriously.
You're promoting a suspicion, giving it more weight than any certainty, why should I take that seriously?
Greta wrote: You clearly see reality as something about which we have gained a strong over all understanding with just some details to sort out. I say that there's a good chance that we still understand diddly-squat.
Ironically, you clearly see the gap in our knowledge as something about which you have a strong overall understanding, to the point that you claim complete certainty about the huge extension of that gap. Actually, not knowing implies not knowing how much we don't know either.
Greta wrote:There's a great deal of reality that is "completely out of scope of our inquiries and research", that is, the (probably billions or trillions of) galaxies so far away that the universe won't last long enough for their light to reach us. Is it pointless to note that that reality outside of our capacities to interrogate exists?
You missed the point. Far away galaxies, which we know are far away galaxies, are within the scope of our inquiries and research (as limited as they can be), they are part of an intelligible reality. Unlike any worlds claimed to be outside that reality, which would be unintelligible.
Greta wrote: I once had that faith too. Then I came to understand, even after all this time, just how clueless medical science is in terms of understanding systemic problems, even the very most mundane issues - viruses, arthritis, addiction, mental illness and depression and so forth.
I think our assessments of the shortcomings of medical science are in relative proportion to its successes. So many advances have been made that we demand even more, and that's fine, it's called progress. But if progress is achieved and we learn more, it will be from medical science, not from "alternative" medicine gurus, homeopaths and the rest of the snake oil sales people. I'm perfectly aware that medicine, as all practices, is not a neutral field and its internal disciplinary processes make it subject to biased manipulation, errors, etc. I'm particularly doubtful about psychology and psychiatry, which are precisely the fields that rely heavily on second hand evidence.

And no medicine beats nutmeg tea (grandma's recipe) to soothe my heartburn.
Greta wrote:The mind, consciousness, space - how often do we mistake knowledge for understanding? We truly don't have a clue in terms of understanding the interrelated processes and systems of reality - what they are actually doing (which is why we claim reality is meaningless - it all just looks like fairly unconnected pointless processes that happen here and there). We keep collecting the dots but tend not to join them. Why? Specialisation, siloing and the fact that knowledge is more profitable than understanding.
I understand your distinction between knowledge and understanding as that between accumulated data and its comprehensive synthesis, but I disagree that we don't have a clue about anything. I'm not a positivist, I deny that experimental sciences are the only path to knowledge (or understanding if you want), but they are part of the whole deal, they are to be taken into account. Explanations are still required, not only interpretations. I favor a holistic, interdisciplinary approach, in which each field of science helps the other. Surely we have a long way to go, but not that much as to posit the demise of all certainties and welcome the arrival of the "anything goes" legion.
Greta wrote: I think you have skirted the surface of the issue. The fact is that the man grabbed a living, breathing, squawking, terrified chook and wrapped it in newspaper. Why weren't the birds killed or at least put in a bag? Why did the customer not protest at the barbarity?

That is nothing to do with "an inevitable and necessary fact of life". Nor is it about the character of the people involved. If they understood the intensity of suffering they were inflicting then they would not have done it. However, they didn't comprehend. They figured that pain and suffering was different for other animals, which is simply not true. That's what we were taught in science, and I saw scientists stating this view even to the 2000s that it was uncertain whether other species felt anything or if it was just reflex actions. We are so far behind the curve as regards consciousness it's not funny.
For what I know, understanding the intensity of suffering not necessarily plays a role in taking the action. Twisting chicken heads happens here everyday and believe me, people are perfectly aware of their suffering, they just don't value an anonymous objectified chicken that much. You say "they didn't comprehend" as if it was an indisputable fact (talk about certainties), but it would be more appropriate to say that you two wouldn't comprehend each other. From the other side's perspective, you don't comprehend either.

BigBango
Posts: 213
Joined: March 15th, 2018, 6:15 pm

Re: Evidence that Consciousness Survives Bodily Death?

Post by BigBango » January 16th, 2019, 3:43 am

In the interest of the OP, I want to weigh in on what the implications of my very speculative theories would be as they relate to consciousness and the banter that has developed between Greta and CL.

In my theory consciousness does not evolve. A true dual aspect theory of reality has both the "subject" and "object" as ontological primitives. While the primitive nature of consciousness as a coequal branch of government does not evolve, the way in which it becomes embedded in reality does evolve. Tamminen has failed to live up to his thesis that the "subject" is ontologically a first cause. He sees the "subject" as evolving early in our history but he fails to support it's existence as sui generis.

In my thesis the "subject" has always existed and has evolved its relationship to inanimate matter from the beginning through Big Crunches and Big Bangs. Each new fractal level of inanimate reality finds an experienced "subject" instantiating itself in the new world it finds itself in. That process of instantiation in a new world is what is mistaken for the evolution of "consciousness". Yes consciousness must evolve in the new world but its evolution is not an evolution of "kind" it is rather an evolution that instantiates itself by recreating itself in the matter of a new world. Therefore the "consciousness" that our science sees evolving after the Big Bang is simply a "subject-like" creation of itself in its new world of matter.

What this view means as far as the OP is concerned is that "consciousness" does survive death in the sense that only its most recent expression in our world dies while its essence as a carrier of meaning from one world to another remains in tact.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7745
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Evidence that Consciousness Survives Bodily Death?

Post by Greta » January 16th, 2019, 7:53 pm

Count Lucanor wrote:
January 15th, 2019, 9:53 pm
Greta wrote:Do you know how much I care about undisciplined thinkers who believe in supernatural entities without grounding? Not a bit. They can have their Pandora's Box if that works for them.
Isn't that the whole point, that you give a free pass to undisciplined thinking? What do you think feeds the gospel seekers? Undisciplined thinking gave us gods, but it also gave us NDE narratives about the supernatural realms where those gods use to dwell.
Trivia. You're the one doing the politics, watching the froth and bubble, worried about shaping other people's minds.

Personally, I'm just interested in reality. Did you know there is a whole universe out there that has precious little to do with humans and their opinions? I find that approaching philosophy from a naturalist rather than a political angle is much more grounding, interesting and rewarding.

Further, it's illogical to question people's NDE narratives, as if you knew better than they what they were experiencing. You can question interpretations but you are kidding yourself if you think you know better than dying people what's going on for them. The time when each of us can be expert in the subjective process of death is yet to come.

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 712
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: Evidence that Consciousness Survives Bodily Death?

Post by Karpel Tunnel » January 17th, 2019, 12:11 pm

Count Lucanor wrote:
January 13th, 2019, 2:25 pm
But a lot of things stem from this basic fact, because that consciousness we find in this world is the one we can deal with, study and describe.
Not really. We can study the responses of the organisms we grant consciousness to. We can't study the consciousness. Cognitive processes are not consciousness. The actual awareness or experiencing is out of our reach. Surprise surprise we grant conscious to ourselves, and only with great reluctance in the late 60s and 70s scientist begin to grant animals, first only those like us, consciousness. Of course we do this back on responses, behavior, implicit cognition, assuming that consciousness is tied to cognition. But there is no proof of this at all.

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 439
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm

Re: Evidence that Consciousness Survives Bodily Death?

Post by Count Lucanor » January 18th, 2019, 11:55 pm

Greta wrote:Trivia. You're the politics guy, watching the froth and bubble, worried about shaping other people's minds.
What you think I am is pointless and irrevelant. The issue is whether a set of claims has any grounding on a rational understanding of reality. NDE narratives don't have any and I challenge anyone willing to show that they have, to give it a try. Your appeal to epistemological agnosticism just pretends to give breathing room to unwarranted beliefs, but such strategy cannot bypass the lack of realism in idealist philosophy.
Greta wrote:Personally, I'm just interested in reality.
I'm a realist, I think I would have noticed. It looks more like you look for opening up spaces to a conception of reality you want to believe in or comfortably imagine as possible.
Greta wrote:Did you know there is a whole universe out there that has precious little to do with humans and their opinions?
I subscribe to this view completely. I should print it and frame it. Humans, organisms, consciousness: little, irrelevant byproducts in a vast universe of inanimate matter and energy.
Greta wrote:I find that approaching philosophy from a naturalist rather than a political angle is much more grounding, interesting and rewarding.
What matters is what the truth about reality is, not what view about reality is more conforting. In any case, it's a bit confusing what you wanted to say about the "political angle" of philosophy, and how it precludes naturalism. Whether naturalism entails an ontology or a methodology, it's always aligned with conventional experimental sciences. A "political angle" that points critically at attempts to divorce from naturalism is actually more pro-naturalism than the advocacy for consumating that divorce, which is what you do.
Greta wrote:Further, it's illogical to question people's NDE narratives, as if you knew better than they what they were experiencing.

As I explained before, their testimony has very little value. It's just a claim, of the same type as "I saw the Virgin Mary" or "I was abducted by aliens that came in a spaceship". It's quite logical to question these narratives if they can't produce evidence.
Greta wrote: You can question interpretations but you are kidding yourself if you think you know better than dying people what's going on for them. The time when each of us can be expert in the subjective process of death is yet to come.

As I explained before, you are fooling yourself if you think we are talking about people who died. They were not buried in the cemetery. That's why the whole thing is labeled Near Death Experiences, because they never died. The only reason the subject of death is invoked is because it is assumed that there's a journey of an immaterial soul to the spiritual, immaterial side.

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 439
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm

Re: Evidence that Consciousness Survives Bodily Death?

Post by Count Lucanor » January 19th, 2019, 12:04 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
January 17th, 2019, 12:11 pm
Count Lucanor wrote:
January 13th, 2019, 2:25 pm
But a lot of things stem from this basic fact, because that consciousness we find in this world is the one we can deal with, study and describe.
Not really. We can study the responses of the organisms we grant consciousness to. We can't study the consciousness. Cognitive processes are not consciousness. The actual awareness or experiencing is out of our reach. Surprise surprise we grant conscious to ourselves, and only with great reluctance in the late 60s and 70s scientist begin to grant animals, first only those like us, consciousness. Of course we do this back on responses, behavior, implicit cognition, assuming that consciousness is tied to cognition. But there is no proof of this at all.
You're approach is like that of someone who wanted to know a famous university, so he went to the place and visited one by one every building, until he reached the last one and asked the tour guide: they still haven't showed me the university. Surely, they still haven't showed you consciousness.

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 712
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: Evidence that Consciousness Survives Bodily Death?

Post by Karpel Tunnel » January 19th, 2019, 1:31 am

Count Lucanor wrote:
January 19th, 2019, 12:04 am
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
January 17th, 2019, 12:11 pm
Not really. We can study the responses of the organisms we grant consciousness to. We can't study the consciousness. Cognitive processes are not consciousness. The actual awareness or experiencing is out of our reach. Surprise surprise we grant conscious to ourselves, and only with great reluctance in the late 60s and 70s scientist begin to grant animals, first only those like us, consciousness. Of course we do this back on responses, behavior, implicit cognition, assuming that consciousness is tied to cognition. But there is no proof of this at all.
You're approach is like that of someone who wanted to know a famous university, so he went to the place and visited one by one every building, until he reached the last one and asked the tour guide: they still haven't showed me the university. Surely, they still haven't showed you consciousness.
If that guys thinks a university is about architecture, then sure, he was confused.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7745
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Evidence that Consciousness Survives Bodily Death?

Post by Greta » January 19th, 2019, 1:57 am

Count, the divided replies aren't getting us anywhere. I am quite aware that the "lights out" hypothesis appears most likely based on what is fairly solidly known at present. However, I am mindful that our progress can be summarised in just a few words - "It's not that simple". From Copernicus to Einstein to Plank and Heisenberg. It's to be expected that our models would oversimplify; that's what a model is - a simplification that helps add clarity.

Just to go on record, I don't care if new agers or theists might misconstrue what I say, or feel justified with the application of pseudoscience. That's your battle, not mine.

As for humans in the universe. Humans and their stuff are not just byproducts IMO but the pointy end (or close to it) of the universe's organisational development thus far. This is not a lofty claim. If Earth was the first planet to develop to this extent then sixty million years ago the dinosaurs were the most organised entities.

I think NDEs should be taken seriously because those people came a helluva lot closer to death than we have done (touch wood). Indeed, the people reporting on these are not rotting carcasses but that's as close as people have come to death and returned. Pre-internet, if you travel to the coast of a place you will find out a lot more about that place than you would imagining what it's like at home. Same principle.

Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 2015
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Evidence that Consciousness Survives Bodily Death?

Post by Belindi » January 19th, 2019, 6:58 am

Count Lucanor wrote:
You're approach is like that of someone who wanted to know a famous university, so he went to the place and visited one by one every building, until he reached the last one and asked the tour guide: they still haven't showed me the university. Surely, they still haven't showed you consciousness.
A university is as you say more than a building. A university is an invisible myth. It's a story that people tell and believe about a body of learning , its status, and the people there who are learned and who teach and their status, and the students who go there to learn. The university is not a state of mind but a fiction which is 'out there' in the public arena for all to participate in.A university is a socially constructed story.

Consciousness on the other hand is not an invisible myth. Consciousness is not a socially constructed story. It is a state of mind - brains which can remember and understand and help to construct many myths including the myth of the university.

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 439
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm

Re: Evidence that Consciousness Survives Bodily Death?

Post by Count Lucanor » January 19th, 2019, 3:42 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
January 19th, 2019, 1:31 am
Count Lucanor wrote:
January 19th, 2019, 12:04 am

You're approach is like that of someone who wanted to know a famous university, so he went to the place and visited one by one every building, until he reached the last one and asked the tour guide: they still haven't showed me the university. Surely, they still haven't showed you consciousness.
If that guys thinks a university is about architecture, then sure, he was confused.
No, that guy does not realize architecture as an essential part of the nature of being of universities, he's looking for the particular concrete expression of the universal abstract "university", just as you look for consciousness under the same terms, overlooking cognition the same way the visitor overlooked the buildings, feeling confident that they were not the university.

Post Reply