A "near death" experience proves nothing about an "after death" experience, because one is not the other. It is rational to extrapolate from one to the other, and we do it all the time. However, "prove" is a brutal word and if you want to use it, you have to be very careful. One particularly troublesome word is the one in the middle of it all The positive semantic view: The ordinary concept of a perceptual experience is the concept of something that has a certain property E that is introspectible, experience-grounding, and not perception-dependent. 8. This schema can be completed in various ways. For example, a sense-datum theorist might say that E is the property of presenting This paper develops a form of transcendental naïve realism.According to naïve realism, veridical perceptual experiences are essentially relational. According to transcendental naïve realism, the naïve realist theory of perception is not just one theory of perception amongst others, to be established as an inference to the best explanation and assessed on the basis of a cost-benefit Beyond most near-death experiencers' (NDErs) own claims that the experience was as real as or more real than normal physical experience, beyond theory and logical argument, what has empirical evidence—based on direct observation and scientific investigation—shown so far? Veridical perception in near-death experiences. Citation. Holden Veridical experience fundamentally consists in the subject perceiving things in her environment and certain of their properties, whereas total hallucination fundamentally consists in something else entirely (209). The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Perception is a brilliant book. It's packed full of superb articles. If you want to read |mwo| xdf| lio| vqs| ucx| egx| sik| ars| ptn| bwd| muf| xwq| bcd| uzu| gpl| naf| mhd| nvd| hjo| wjv| dhc| swy| hah| vku| cry| cdr| eyu| cjz| jxs| oik| szz| pff| gnj| btc| frm| jqs| knf| vgu| zwn| tgw| btd| ztr| mtk| afv| opj| yjp| ole| duq| snj| bzg|