Proof of Immortality III

[Jabba]

So we can conclude that the materialist explanation for Mt. Rainier existing is false?

Dave,
- Not from my thesis.
- From #428:
- And, my claim (for the moment at least) is ‘still’ that, the difference between ME and Rainier is that there is no reasonable doubt re the Rainier given; whereas for ME, there is.
- Unlikely effects, in the sense that Rainier is unlikely, happen ALL the time with no mathematical implications re the given. Unlikely effects, have mathematical implications re the given only when there is reasonable doubt re the given to begin with.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- Not from my thesis.
- From #428:
- And, my claim (for the moment at least) is ‘still’ that, the difference between ME and Rainier is that there is no reasonable doubt re the Rainier given; whereas for ME, there is.
- Unlikely effects, in the sense that Rainier is unlikely, happen ALL the time with no mathematical implications re the given. Unlikely effects, have mathematical implications re the given only when there is reasonable doubt re the given to begin with.

This would seem to imply that before people understood plate tectonics, it would have been reasonable to conclude that Mt. Rainier couldn't have formed naturally.

 

[Nonpareil]

Consciousness is outside of the material existence, from my experience. It is a quality of being and what we might call true self. The brain enables true self to have a conscious experience through the physical, the garment of matter.

Evidence?

There is scientific evidence that consciousness is not 'of the body', through examination of NDE and people who have reported things when they recovered that were not in the vicinity of the operating theatre or ER or where their body was physically.

Literally every valid study of near-death experiences has concluded the exact opposite. Near-death experiences are entirely mundane.

 

[I Am The Scum]

And is irrelevant regardless.

Even taking both of those premises as true, Jabba is no closer to establishing that the soul actually exists.

True. Simple example:

I find a quarter on the ground and, without further inspection, flip it.
It turns up heads.
If this was an ordinary, fair coin, then the odds of heads coming up is 50/50.
If this was a double-headed coin, then the odds of heads coming up is 100%.

Therefore, I can safely assume that it was a double-headed coin?
No, sorry. That is not a fair inference.

 

[Loss Leader]

Dave,
- Not from my thesis.
- From #428:
- And, my claim (for the moment at least) is ‘still’ that, the difference between ME and Rainier is that there is no reasonable doubt re the Rainier given; whereas for ME, there is.
- Unlikely effects, in the sense that Rainier is unlikely, happen ALL the time with no mathematical implications re the given. Unlikely effects, have mathematical implications re the given only when there is reasonable doubt re the given to begin with.

Nope. You're using two different standards of proof ... this time in the same sentence. You demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt but then you want a much lower level of doubt for your theory.

Why don't you cowboy up and prove to us that your interpretation is true beyond any reasonable doubt? You can't. You've frequently said all you want to show is that yours is more probable. Sorry. Your standard of evidence made no sense years ago in our dedicated thread and it makes no sense now.

 

[Mojo]

Why don't you cowboy up and prove to us that your interpretation is true beyond any reasonable doubt? You can't.

He can't even prove it on the balance of probability.

 

[Jabba]

This would seem to imply that before people understood plate tectonics, it would have been reasonable to conclude that Mt. Rainier couldn't have formed naturally.

Dave,

- It's according to who, and when, you ask.
- I assume that if you went back far enough, most people would blame everything on God or the gods.
- But, if you go back to, say, 1940 (before the acceptance of plate tectonics), most educated people would accept reductive materialism in general and have no reason to suspect that Rainier was not the result of natural laws.

- A key factor in this issue is especially difficult to describe, but it has to do with "motive," or "will."
- We pretty much accept that the lottery winner is the result of chance. But, if we found out that the winner was 2nd cousin to the guy who controls the pot, we'd have serious doubts.
- If the guy who won the deciding poker hand was discovered to be secret friends with the dealer whose reputation had just been challenged, we would question whether the win was simply due to chance. We would validly suspect a presuppositional explanation.
- Whatever, educated people in 1940 would probably assume that Mt Rainier had no motive or will, and is simply one of those unimaginably numerous natural but unimaginably unlikely events.

 

[Pixel42]

- We pretty much accept that the lottery winner is the result of chance. But, if we found out that the winner was 2nd cousin to the guy who controls the pot, we'd have serious doubts.
- If the guy who won the deciding poker hand was discovered to be secret friends with the dealer whose reputation had just been challenged, we would question whether the win was simply due to chance. We would validly suspect a presuppositional explanation.

Neither of these are analogous to your existence. Your existence is analogous to a random person winning an unfixed lottery, or a winning poker player who doesn't know the dealer and didn't cheat. There is nothing suspicious about it whatsoever.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Dave,

- It's according to who, and when, you ask.
- I assume that if you went back far enough, most people would blame everything on God or the gods.
- But, if you go back to, say, 1940 (before the acceptance of plate tectonics), most educated people would accept reductive materialism in general and have no reason to suspect that Rainier was not the result of natural laws.

- A key factor in this issue is especially difficult to describe, but it has to do with "motive," or "will."
- We pretty much accept that the lottery winner is the result of chance. But, if we found out that the winner was 2nd cousin to the guy who controls the pot, we'd have serious doubts.
- If the guy who won the deciding poker hand was discovered to be secret friends with the dealer whose reputation had just been challenged, we would question whether the win was simply due to chance. We would validly suspect a presuppositional explanation.
- Whatever, educated people in 1940 would probably assume that Mt Rainier had no motive or will, and is simply one of those unimaginably numerous natural but unimaginably unlikely events.

And I'm going to repeat myself:

There are conceivable mechanisms for a conscious entity altering the odds on a game of chance (loaded dice, trick shuffles, etc.)

There are no conceivable mechanisms for a conscious entity altering the laws of physics.

And I will add: Even if it were the case that the current scientific model were wrong about our current existence, this would not serve as any indication that I will have another life after this one. Please focus on the subject at hand.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,

- It's according to who, and when, you ask.
- I assume that if you went back far enough, most people would blame everything on God or the gods.
- But, if you go back to, say, 1940 (before the acceptance of plate tectonics), most educated people would accept reductive materialism in general and have no reason to suspect that Rainier was not the result of natural laws.

- A key factor in this issue is especially difficult to describe, but it has to do with "motive," or "will."
- We pretty much accept that the lottery winner is the result of chance. But, if we found out that the winner was 2nd cousin to the guy who controls the pot, we'd have serious doubts.
- If the guy who won the deciding poker hand was discovered to be secret friends with the dealer whose reputation had just been challenged, we would question whether the win was simply due to chance. We would validly suspect a presuppositional explanation.
- Whatever, educated people in 1940 would probably assume that Mt Rainier had no motive or will, and is simply one of those unimaginably numerous natural but unimaginably unlikely events.

So why are human selves any different? Why does motive or will change anything?

 

[Mojo]

So why are human selves any different?

Because there is no evidence that Mount Rainier has an immortal soul, while, er, hang on a moment...

 

[kyrani99]

Evidence?

Proof of Consciousness out of body (Nonlocal Consciousness) - Dr. Pim van Lommel MN in the Netherlands cardiologist (2011 Seminar)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h93dLIn6rVc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZpo-tQEJPg
and he has others as well.

Are Mind and Brain the Same? (NDEs) - by Dr. Peter Fenwick neuropsychiatrist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAn3T7MHHOM

Literally every valid study of near-death experiences has concluded the exact opposite. Near-death experiences are entirely mundane.

Not according to the doctors like Pim van Lommel and Dr Peter Fenwick and there are others as well. One of the pieces of evidence is that the person is able to describe events that took place during their cardiac arrest when they were clinically dead, i.e., with no brain activity. Also they described things that happened in other locations, eg outside the ER and which could be corroborated by others, including nurses and other doctors.

 

[John Jones]

Evidence?

Proof of Consciousness out of body (Nonlocal Consciousness) - Dr. Pim van Lommel MN in the Netherlands cardiologist (2011 Seminar)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h93dLIn6rVc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZpo-tQEJPg
and he has others as well.

Are Mind and Brain the Same? (NDEs) - by Dr. Peter Fenwick neuropsychiatrist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAn3T7MHHOM




Not according to the doctors like Pim van Lommel and Dr Peter Fenwick and there are others as well. One of the pieces of evidence is that the person is able to describe events that took place during their cardiac arrest when they were clinically dead, i.e., with no brain activity. Also they described things that happened in other locations, eg outside the ER and which could be corroborated by others, including nurses and other doctors.

I don't do youtube.

 

[Giordano]

Evidence?

Proof of Consciousness out of body (Nonlocal Consciousness) - Dr. Pim van Lommel MN in the Netherlands cardiologist (2011 Seminar)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h93dLIn6rVc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZpo-tQEJPg
and he has others as well.

Are Mind and Brain the Same? (NDEs) - by Dr. Peter Fenwick neuropsychiatrist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAn3T7MHHOM




Not according to the doctors like Pim van Lommel and Dr Peter Fenwick and there are others as well. One of the pieces of evidence is that the person is able to describe events that took place during their cardiac arrest when they were clinically dead, i.e., with no brain activity. Also they described things that happened in other locations, eg outside the ER and which could be corroborated by others, including nurses and other doctors.

Hi! I've been keeping out of this discussion but I noticed your post and I wondered if you made any attempt to read much of this thread? I know it is long but one can do a search. The points you bring up above have been covered many times in this thread and/or others relating to mind beyond body. Maartenn 100's near death experiences thread has covered many of these issues over and over again.

Sorry, but one of my pet peeves is when a poster newly comes into forum threads and posts something as novel that has already been discredited/rehashed to death upthread.

 

[JayUtah]

These all deal with measurable brain activity. No one has doubted the possibility that the brain is active near death in ways we are unable to measure.

 

[Nonpareil]

Proof of Consciousness out of body (Nonlocal Consciousness) - Dr. Pim van Lommel MN in the Netherlands cardiologist (2011 Seminar)

Lommel is a known quack. His research into near-death experiences is demonstrably flawed and non-scientific.

Are Mind and Brain the Same? (NDEs) - by Dr. Peter Fenwick neuropsychiatrist

Likewise for Fenwick.

Not according to the doctors like Pim van Lommel and Dr Peter Fenwick and there are others as well.

Yes, there are.

The issue is that not a one of them can produce an actual valid study to support their beliefs. They may be talented doctors in certain areas, but when it comes to NDEs, their methodology becomes poor and scientific integrity is thrown out of the window.

This is often the case with pet beliefs.

One of the pieces of evidence is that the person is able to describe events that took place during their cardiac arrest when they were clinically dead, i.e., with no brain activity. Also they described things that happened in other locations, eg outside the ER and which could be corroborated by others, including nurses and other doctors.

This is a common claim among NDE believers.

It is, flatly, not true.

 

[Jabba]

So why are human selves any different? Why does motive or will change anything?

Dave,
- I'm still here. I'm thinkin.

 

[JayUtah]

But the question is what you're thinking about. Are you honestly contemplating these things? Or are you just struggling to find another way to disguise your obvious double standard? The problem with a lot of your arguments at ISF is that you never seem to accept the possibility that you may be wrong. The longer you spend thinking about these conundrums, the more apparent it becomes that your denial is conscious and deliberate.

 

[MRC_Hans]

One of the pieces of evidence is that the person is able to describe events that took place during their cardiac arrest when they were clinically dead, i.e., with no brain activity. Also they described things that happened in other locations, eg outside the ER and which could be corroborated by others, including nurses and other doctors.

First of all, the person was not clinically dead. If you are, you will not wake up to tell the tale. That's a matter of definition.

Anybody can describe situations that happen in a hospital environment.

By the way, just to nitpick, what you describe is OBEs not NDEs.

Hans

 

[Jabba]

[/U]282110]Hi! I've been keeping out of this discussion but I noticed your post and I wondered if you made any attempt to read much of this thread? I know it is long but one can do a search. The points you bring up above have been covered many times in this thread and/or others relating to mind beyond body. Maartenn 100's near death experiences thread has covered many of these issues over and over again.

Sorry, but one of my pet peeves is when a poster newly comes into forum threads and posts something as novel that has already been discredited/rehashed to death upthread.

Giordano,
- One of my pet peeves is when one of the vast majority of angry skeptics on this forum claims that some non-skeptical position has been discredited to death (or words very similar) when they have simply been disclaimed to death by angry skeptics.