Merged A new argument pro Near Death Experiences

[JayUtah]

I don't get the impression that is the problem at all since there is nothing pretentious,about me. You have to understand that typing on a forum is an autistic form of communication since you can't see expressions or body language.

If you cannot communicate accurately without body language, that's your problem. You're on a forum where the only form available is the written word. If you are constantly misunderstood by all your critics because you cannot convey yourself appropriately in writing, then that's your fault and you need to fix it. You also need to apologize to all the people to whom you constantly seem to be giving an inaccurate impression.

When you make a judgment that would normally require expertise, and someone challenges you on it, a common response from you is, "Well, I guess you don't know anything about _____." I have asked you how that could be interpreted as anything but a claim to expertise, and the answer you gave was that if you were intending to profess expertise you would just come right out and say so. But since your defense against people calling out your passive aggression is to focus on the passivity and ignore the aggression, that answer doesn't wash.

 

[JayUtah]

All you had to do was answer my genuine questions.

Asked and answered.

I mentioned dimensionality and degrees of freedom as they relate to linear algebra. You demanded I explain those to you, beginning from your position of near total ignorance of the entire field. Since they are large and complex topics, I told you where instead you could go to be educated, but you insisted that the only education you would accept was personal instruction from me via this forum. How does that make you the reasonable one?

Then later you brought up specific points from Lanza, which were different questions and some of which could be answered sufficiently in a few paragraphs. This was after several critics begged you to make specific points rather than simply throw around general claims and chide them for their supposed inability to offer a meaningful response.

I continue to be glad that you found the explanation helpful. However I do not agree with your characterization that I have only now suddenly become helpful after previously being evasive and cantankerous. If you want to discuss complex scientific topics, you are responsible for acquiring the appropriate foundational knowledge. There is no shortcut. When you made suitable points, you got a suitable answer. When you made outrageous requests, you were properly rebuffed.

I approach these threads as discussions not necessarily as debates.

Nonsense. You fell all over yourself complaining that no one could show any error in your claims. You fell all over yourself again demanding affirmative rebuttals from anyone who dared dispute you. You clearly want a debate, but the problem arises when you don't win it. You beg your critics to come out and meet your rhetoric, then lambast them for their supposed aggression when they do.

That isn't a requisite of the rules but many here think it is.

It has nothing to do with the rules. Most fringe claimants use the same motte-and-bailey tactic you're trying. What starts out as a debate ends being recast later as only a "discussion" so the claimant can save face after failing to convince anyone and failing to demonstrate appropriate knowledge and reason.

The only other conclusion I can draw when someone becomes surly is that they have some kind of revulsion for the topic in general.

You draw lots of conclusions about what you think your opponents' arguments are and why you think they're making them, and you spend a fair amount of time trying to stuff those conclusions back into your critics' mouths. You don't seem to consider the possibility that your rampant passive-aggressive debate style is what frustrates your critics, not some imaginary ideological revulsion for the topic or some purported deficiency of ego on their part.

 

[JayUtah]

JayUtah specifically says in the second sentence of the very post you quoted that you don't claim expertise, you just act as if you have it.

It is particularly amusing when a person's rather ham-fished straw-man tactics are explicitly identified. And even more amusing when, in response, that person says, "Here, just let me use the same straw man."

 

[theprestige]

What I post here is what I consider to be circumstantial evidence only at best

Jodie,
- Would you say it's indirect evidence?
- Does it tip the scales?
- Will you be back?

 

[JayUtah]

Jodie,
- Would you say it's indirect evidence?
- Does it tip the scales?
- Will you be back?

Nice use of the Jabba format. I'm not going to tar Jodie with the Jabba brush, or vice versa. But we do, in both cases, have to look at what is being thrown out as "circumstantial evidence."

When reasoning circumstantially, an inference must be drawn between what is actually in evidence and what is theorized. In law, a body of circumstantial evidence can be quite persuasive, but not in science. When the reader is asked to infer a controversial conclusion from an unrelated finding, that's just begging the question. And to her credit, Jodie has said her inferences are her opinion.

The typical pattern of argumentation is that a particular scientific finding is referenced. The reader is supposed to draw the circumstantial inference that what these findings describe may be what we can expect from a persistent noncorporeal consciousness. But from the critic's perspective, it's just the well-worn attempt to backfill the predetermined belief by cherry-picking and misinterpreting science.

Because quantum theory is so very abstract, so little understood outside the field of practitioners, and often so very counterintuitive to a classical view of the physical world, it is fertile ground for planting nonsensical claims. Invoking quantum theory risks very little informed criticism, and conveys the illusion that one's theories are not only upheld by science, but by the most exotic and visionary science we possess.

 

[Donn]

Quantum theory as wanton theory.

(Wonton theory too, with all dipping to taste.)

 

[Jodie]

Asked and answered. You don't claim expertise. You just behave in all respects as if you had it.

Since when can you observe behavior from a forum post? I either ask a question or make a statement to generate discussion.

 

[Jodie]

Jodie,
- Would you say it's indirect evidence?
- Does it tip the scales?
- Will you be back?

I simply believe that we do continue on after death. I throw these loose assumptions out there as circumstantial or indirect evidence, if you can call it that for this very reason, to get feedback, not because I necessarily think I'm right about how life exists after death. I'm pretty sure no one does so there are no experts in that area. Nothing here in this thread tips the scale either way and I always come back after my call rotation.

 

[Jodie]

Nice use of the Jabba format. I'm not going to tar Jodie with the Jabba brush, or vice versa. But we do, in both cases, have to look at what is being thrown out as "circumstantial evidence."

When reasoning circumstantially, an inference must be drawn between what is actually in evidence and what is theorized. In law, a body of circumstantial evidence can be quite persuasive, but not in science. When the reader is asked to infer a controversial conclusion from an unrelated finding, that's just begging the question. And to her credit, Jodie has said her inferences are her opinion.

The typical pattern of argumentation is that a particular scientific finding is referenced. The reader is supposed to draw the circumstantial inference that what these findings describe may be what we can expect from a persistent noncorporeal consciousness. But from the critic's perspective, it's just the well-worn attempt to backfill the predetermined belief by cherry-picking and misinterpreting science.

Because quantum theory is so very abstract, so little understood outside the field of practitioners, and often so very counterintuitive to a classical view of the physical world, it is fertile ground for planting nonsensical claims. Invoking quantum theory risks very little informed criticism, and conveys the illusion that one's theories are not only upheld by science, but by the most exotic and visionary science we possess.

And I still think physics is the crux of all other sciences and it will eventually describe what in old religions was thought of as the spirit realm. It might take another couple of thousand years if we survive as a technologically advanced species. What is a Jabba brush? If I'm tentatively being insulted I'ld like to know what that is.

 

[Jodie]

It is particularly amusing when a person's rather ham-fished straw-man tactics are explicitly identified. And even more amusing when, in response, that person says, "Here, just let me use the same straw man."

And even more amusing when you respond to them in like fashion with your ad hominems.

 

[JayUtah]

And even more amusing when you respond to them in like fashion.

So you're not going to explain to the forum how you tried to shove words in my mouth that I specifically disavowed? I wasn't even the first to notice it.

 

[Jodie]

So you're not going to explain to the forum how you tried to shove words in my mouth that I specifically disavowed? I wasn't even the first to notice it.

No because what you did, and are doing, is pretty self evident. Your claims were an attack on me, rather than the argument, based on what you read into my posts.

 

[Pup]

I simply believe that we do continue on after death. I throw these loose assumptions out there as circumstantial or indirect evidence, if you can call it that for this very reason, to get feedback, not because I necessarily think I'm right about how life exists after death. I'm pretty sure no one does so there are no experts in that area. Nothing here in this thread tips the scale either way and I always come back after my call rotation.

You're sure we continue after death, but you're not sure how.

Looking for a scientific explanation how something happens is generally the second step in science, the first step being finding the evidence that it does happen.

 

[JayUtah]

Since when can you observe behavior from a forum post?

Because the act of making a forum post, including choosing its language, is behavior. And I observe it.

I either ask a question or make a statement to generate discussion.

So insinuating that Nonpareil's knowledge of "AI research" is not as good as yours is only to "generate discussion?"

I have to wonder who you think you're fooling. This entire thread, except for you, seems to agree you're arguing pretentiously. Are all the other people encouraging you to stop doing it just magically under some spell I've woven?

I throw these loose assumptions out there as circumstantial or indirect evidence, if you can call it that for this very reason...

Theprestige is mimicking another poster, Jabba, who similarly misdefines "circumstantial evidence" as you have done. There is nothing evidentiary (in any sense) about assumptions.

...to get feedback, not because I necessarily think I'm right about how life exists after death.

What part of that is consistent with insinuating that your critics are are not as well informed as you are?

 

[JayUtah]

No because what you did, and are doing, is pretty self evident.

No. As two people noticed, the words you tried to cram in my mouth are explicitly the sentiment I disavowed. Not only that, I went into specific and lengthy detail about how you avoid the claim of expertise in favor of a less direct pretense for it. And again, other posters managed to see that too. Strangely enough, your response is to double-down and once again try to stuff those words in my mouth. How sad.

Jodie, you cannot demonstrate competence in most of the sciences you invoke to support your beliefs. Why do you think this is an honest or useful approach?

Your claims were an attack on me, rather than the argument, based on what you read into my posts.

Then report my posts for moderation and quite trying to exploit for rhetorical effect your personal judgment that they are inappropriate.

 

[Jodie]

You're sure we continue after death, but you're not sure how.

Yes, just like I know water runs out of a pipe into my bath tub but I couldn't tell you what pipe to fix if it was broken.

Looking for a scientific explanation how something happens is generally the second step in science, the first step being finding the evidence that it does happen.

I have my reasons for believing that there is more to this world than we understand. When these odd things happen to me the first thing I look for is the logical, rational explanation. Most things are easily explained but not everything. That doesn't mean I'm right to draw conclusions about what happens to us after death based on these experiences, but it certainly doesn't mean those with opposing opinions are either.

 

[JayUtah]

Your claims were an attack on me, rather than the argument...

What argument? You've been telling us for the past page or so that you aren't making arguments but only offering opinions and assumptions. Please clarify. Why should it matter if people disbelieve your assumptions and opinions?

 

[JayUtah]

I have my reasons for believing that there is more to this world than we understand.

Are these scientific reasons or, shall we say, private and intuitive reasons? You don't have to lay them out if you don't want to. But the problem is that historically speaking, trying to find scientific justifications for conclusions that aren't scientific observations.

That doesn't mean I'm right to draw conclusions about what happens to us after death based on these experiences

Your error is to believe that the sciences you choose to emphasize are malleable enough to support those conclusions. You will literally have more success if you don't try to use science inappropriately. Now I can't speak for all skeptics, but there is a certain respect given to people who believe things for personal reasons and don't try to pretend there is an objective reason to believe them when there isn't.

...but it certainly doesn't mean those with opposing opinions are either.

The difference between you and your critics is that you are only half scientific. You're trying to mix the natural and the supernatural, and you are crapping all over science to do so. In contrast your critics are being entirely scientific.

 

[Jodie]

Because the act of making a forum post, including choosing its language, is behavior. And I observe it.

You don't observe tone or body language in forum posts and your approach is argumentative where as I'm looking for discussion, especially with topics like these that have no evidence to support either position.

[quote}So insinuating that Nonpareil's knowledge of "AI research" is not as good as yours is only to "generate discussion?"[/quote]

No, Nonpareil's knowledge of nuclear medicine is lacking.

I have to wonder who you think you're fooling. This entire thread, except for you, seems to agree you're arguing pretentiously. Are all the other people encouraging you to stop doing it just magically under some spell I've woven?

The only person I've seen that has a problem with my posts in this thread is you. This topic shouldn't engender the volumes of posts that you've directed towards me, attacking me, rather than the argument, since you don't know me. I can only assume that it is the topic that bothers you and you would prefer that I shut up about it.

heprestige is mimicking another poster, Jabba, who similarly misdefines "circumstantial evidence" as you have done. There is nothing evidentiary (in any sense) about assumptions.

True, hence at best was added to it

What part of that is consistent with insinuating that your critics are are not as well informed as you are?

If you will notice it is not instigation on my part but as a response to some comment directed towards me. How do I know what these people know if they don't explain why I'm wrong or misinformed? If someone is unwilling to discuss a topic, and approaches the subject like this one that has so little evidence to support either position, as a debate contest then I think I'm justified in my conclusions.

 

[Jodie]

What argument? You've been telling us for the past page or so that you aren't making arguments but only offering opinions and assumptions. Please clarify. Why should it matter if people disbelieve your assumptions and opinions?

The latest argument was about my interpretation of what an observer actually means when discussing physics. Rather than correct me when I asked for clarification you went into diatribes about my expertise rather than explaining what was wrong with my assumption. I don't care if people disagree as long as they can tell me why they feel that way.