I’m trying to study for my Philosophy course and I need some help to understand this question.
Dr. Eben Alexander’s story of his near death experience is one of the most interesting near death experience stories on the Internet. Watch this video about him:
There are two accounts of near-death experiences, both of which use the the type of non-deductive argument known as “inference to the best explanation”:
Some argue that the best explanation for near-death experiences is that people can exist without any physical body (or brain).
Others reject the notion that people can exist without any physical body (or brain), and argue instead that the best explanation for these near death-experiences is that the still-living brain, under stress, creates these near-death experiences. According to this latter theory, near-death experiences are not what they seem.
These two accounts are incompatible with each other. Defend one of them (only one) as an explanation of near-death experiences. Give reasons for your answer, including why the one you chose is better than the other one. Be sure to relate your answer to your view on Dr. Alexander’s story, as follows:
– If you choose view 1, pick one possible objection to Dr. Alexander’s argument and refute it.
– If you choose view 2, explain why Dr. Alexander’s argument does not refute your view.
Link for video-
When you respond to a fellow student’s response, you need to dispute some point that another student made, and to give reasons for your response. Don’t just say something like “I disagree with his or her response.” Be respectful: the goal is to have an enlightening debate
The other students post is in the file to respond toPlease answer the questions above for the discussion question then respond to the other student from in the file upload