Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[Belz...]

It's new spin on everything at this point.

Jabba's "argument" has been functionally reduced to "You have to prove a negative against a positive that I refuse to define using evidence that I won't give you until you agree sight unseen that it supports my conclusion, a conclusion which by the way is unrelated to anything else I've been saying" and that's before you get into the stalling, fringe resetting, "Befuddled old man" routine argumentatives.

Yeah but at least he doesn't run away. He'll always be back.

 

[Jabba]

Jabba,

If you'd like to establish that there's some chance that the materialistic worldview is wrong, you're going to have to establish some evidence that it is wrong.

Since the materialistic worldview has been established by repeatable (and oft-repeated), falsifiable studies of all sorts in all manner of disciplines, you're going to need a repeatable, falsifiable study of an immaterial world.

Anecdotes are a poor excuse for evidence for all the reasons I've stated. But even then, all they can do is help point to areas for further study...

LL,

- You're saying that even though anecdotes are a poor excuse for evidence, they can point to areas for further study.
- Shouldn't 100 "verified" anecdotes of a particular claim point to further study; and, shouldn't such 'pointing' indicate a 1% chance, at least, that the claim is true?

 

[Belz...]

LL,

- You're saying that even though anecdotes are a poor excuse for evidence, they can point to areas for further study.

Yeah but once you've studied it and found nothing, you have to realise that nothing's there. We've done that already.

Shouldn't 100 "verified" anecdotes of a particular claim point to further study; and, shouldn't such 'pointing' indicate a 1% chance, at least, that the claim is true?

I'd like to see your math for that.

 

[John Jones]

LL,

- You're saying that even though anecdotes are a poor excuse for evidence, they can point to areas for further study.
- Shouldn't 100 "verified" anecdotes of a particular claim point to further study; and, shouldn't such 'pointing' indicate a 1% chance, at least, that the claim is true?

You're groveling for acceptance again. No, 100 anecdotes does not indicate a 1% chance.

The plural of anecdote is not evidence.

 

[godless dave]

So we should assume H includes souls because of what you think further study could reveal?

This particular discussion came about because you were trying to justify "unimaginably large number" as your denominator for P(E|H). You yourself said that "unimaginably large number" was based on H including souls. Now you're trying to justify why H should include souls, and your argument is that there are some anecdotes that might suggest that souls exist, and that even though existing studies of those anecdotes did not find any evidence of an immaterial self, some future studies might.

 

[Pixel42]

Shouldn't 100 "verified" anecdotes of a particular claim point to further study; and, shouldn't such 'pointing' indicate a 1% chance, at least, that the claim is true?

Not unless the further study confirms the validity of the anecdotes.

For example there are many thousands of anecdotes which suggest that homeopathy is an effective medical treatment, more than enough to justify further study using the scientific method to eliminate all known sources of error. When that study was done it demonstrated that homeopathy was ineffective. Likewise telepathy, dowsing, astrology - all phenomena for which there are shed loads of anecdotes but which careful scientific study have shown to be non-existent, just artifacts of well known and well understood sources of error.

At no point in the process was it sensible to assign a probability of 1%, or any other percentage, that the claims made by homeopaths/dowsers etc were true. The only sensible initial assumption is the null hypothesis - that the claim is not true - which the study then attempts to disprove.

 

[Hokulele]

LL,

- You're saying that even though anecdotes are a poor excuse for evidence, they can point to areas for further study.
- Shouldn't 100 "verified" anecdotes of a particular claim point to further study; and, shouldn't such 'pointing' indicate a 1% chance, at least, that the claim is true?

I would be willing to bet that there are more than 100 "verified" accounts of people being possessed by the Devil, and successfully exorcised. Does this mean that there is a 1% chance Satan exists?

 

[JayUtah]

You're saying that even though anecdotes are a poor excuse for evidence, they can point to areas for further study.

Yes. Practically every line of scientific inquiry begins with an anecdote, in the sense that an observation is made which tends against prevailing knowledge. That doesn't mean the further study ends up confirming the anecdote or explaining the observation in the proffered way. An anecdote begins the process of science. It doesn't substitute for it.

Shouldn't 100 "verified" anecdotes...

A "verified" anecdote is still just an anecdote. As I discussed twice at length already, the problem with anecdotal material as scientific proof isn't just in the possibility that the story itself may be untrue. The problem is in the lack of scientific control that allows proper conclusions to be drawn without the interference of confounding factors. If you weren't so adamant about ignoring your critics, you'd have addressed this already.

...shouldn't such 'pointing' indicate a 1% chance, at least, that the claim is true?

NO.

You may not overcome the null hypothesis by simply begging people to consider possibilities in the absence of evidence. Now quit begging the question and provide the definition Loss Leader asked you for.

 

[MRC_Hans]

LL,

- You're saying that even though anecdotes are a poor excuse for evidence, they can point to areas for further study.
- Shouldn't 100 "verified" anecdotes of a particular claim point to further study; and, shouldn't such 'pointing' indicate a 1% chance, at least, that the claim is true?

No. Simply because anecdotes may have other explanations. Since any plausible explanation may very likely cover 100% of available anecdotes, you cannot establish a percentage of probability.

Hans.

 

[Loss Leader]

- Shouldn't 100 "verified" anecdotes of a particular claim point to further study;

Jabba,

I'm afraid the above doesn't make sense. There's no such thing as a "verified" anecdote. A verified anecdote would be one that is testable, falsifiable and repeatable. Since, by definition, an anecdote can't be repeated, it can never be verified (not for scientific purposes, anyway).

Let's say that I told you my great-great-grandfather was twenty feet tall. That's an anecdote. I bring you an old-timey picture in which he looks 20 feet tall. I show you the family bible in which his height is recorded as 20 feet. We find several old Yiddish newspapers about the 20 foot tall man. Albert Einstein writes, in his memoirs, "There is no beauty in science to compare with the sight of a twenty-foot tall man."

Would you accept a 1% chance that humans can grow to twenty feet? is this a "verified" anecdote. I wouldn't accept it. There is no mechanism by which humans can grow to 20 feet tall. By 8 feet, the leg bones can't support the weight; the heart wears out; arms break; early death is guaranteed.

I've seen dinosaurs so real, they gave me nightmares. Imagine showing Jurassic Park to someone in a 1908 nickelodeon. Would you ever be able to convince them that they hadn't seen evidence of dinosaurs?

So, I don't accept that there is any such thing as a scientifically "verified" anecdote.

and, shouldn't such 'pointing' indicate a 1% chance, at least, that the claim is true?

No. Absolutely not. It's not true in any discipline. Did the fact that the district attorney "pointed" to the Central Park Five indicate a 1% chance at least that they were guilty? No. Even though they were convicted and served over a decade each, did it indicate a 1% chance they were guilty? No. They were completely innocent the entire time. And that reality didn't change because of what it seemed like to a judge or jury.

A claim about the present is either true or false.

You appear to be begging for acceptance of this "chance." Let's not skip steps. By your argument, in order for there to be any chance of immortality, there must be an immortal immaterial self. In order for there to be an immortal immaterial self, it must have characteristics. You could not define any of those characteristics; instead, you fell back to the question: If there is any evidence of immateriality, it would be the beginning of evidence of an immortal immateriality. Then you asked to fall back again: If there is any evidence of NDE's or OBE's, it would be evidence of immateriality which would then be the beginning of an evidentiary case for immortal, immaterial souls.

I agreed to fall back to that very basic position. We now need repeatable, falsifiable evidence of non-physical perception. You have been unable to find any as of yet.

You are the one who insisted that effective debate drill down to each sub-sub-issue and explore it completely. We have not finished this exploration and, as per your own ideas, we should not move on. Please either present repeatable, falsifiable evidence of non-physical perception (NDE's, OBE's or otherwise). Until then, let us not move on.

 

[Monza]

LL,

- You're saying that even though anecdotes are a poor excuse for evidence, they can point to areas for further study.
- Shouldn't 100 "verified" anecdotes of a particular claim point to further study; and, shouldn't such 'pointing' indicate a 1% chance, at least, that the claim is true?

This kind of reminds me of the "logic" used for UFO sightings. Someone will point out that Project Blue Book looked at hundreds of UFO sightings and determined that some percentage of them (maybe 99%?) could be attributed to natural means (false identification, hoaxes, etc.). The claim is usually something along the lines of, "but this one sighting couldn't be identified so it must have been an alien craft."

No. It means that it couldn't be positively concluded what it was. Nothing more. For all of the sightings that could be fully investigated and a conclusion reached, 100% of them resulted in non-alien explanations. So what are the chances that those sightings that could not be concluded are actually something mundane?

Having an NDE anecdote that should be studied further does NOT mean that it is an example of a non-material soul. Lack of a firm conclusion is a lack of a firm conclusion. It is not an indication that you can substitute any explanation you want and have it considered as just as probable as any other possibility.

 

[jond]

Jabba,

I'm afraid the above doesn't make sense. There's no such thing as a "verified" anecdote. A verified anecdote would be one that is testable, falsifiable and repeatable. Since, by definition, an anecdote can't be repeated, it can never be verified (not for scientific purposes, anyway).

Let's say that I told you my great-great-grandfather was twenty feet tall. That's an anecdote. I bring you an old-timey picture in which he looks 20 feet tall. I show you the family bible in which his height is recorded as 20 feet. We find several old Yiddish newspapers about the 20 foot tall man. Albert Einstein writes, in his memoirs, "There is no beauty in science to compare with the sight of a twenty-foot tall man."

Would you accept a 1% chance that humans can grow to twenty feet? is this a "verified" anecdote. I wouldn't accept it. There is no mechanism by which humans can grow to 20 feet tall. By 8 feet, the leg bones can't support the weight; the heart wears out; arms break; early death is guaranteed.

I've seen dinosaurs so real, they gave me nightmares. Imagine showing Jurassic Park to someone in a 1908 nickelodeon. Would you ever be able to convince them that they hadn't seen evidence of dinosaurs?

So, I don't accept that there is any such thing as a scientifically "verified" anecdote.





No. Absolutely not. It's not true in any discipline. Did the fact that the district attorney "pointed" to the Central Park Five indicate a 1% chance at least that they were guilty? No. Even though they were convicted and served over a decade each, did it indicate a 1% chance they were guilty? No. They were completely innocent the entire time. And that reality didn't change because of what it seemed like to a judge or jury.

A claim about the present is either true or false.

You appear to be begging for acceptance of this "chance." Let's not skip steps. By your argument, in order for there to be any chance of immortality, there must be an immortal immaterial self. In order for there to be an immortal immaterial self, it must have characteristics. You could not define any of those characteristics; instead, you fell back to the question: If there is any evidence of immateriality, it would be the beginning of evidence of an immortal immateriality. Then you asked to fall back again: If there is any evidence of NDE's or OBE's, it would be evidence of immateriality which would then be the beginning of an evidentiary case for immortal, immaterial souls.

I agreed to fall back to that very basic position. We now need repeatable, falsifiable evidence of non-physical perception. You have been unable to find any as of yet.

You are the one who insisted that effective debate drill down to each sub-sub-issue and explore it completely. We have not finished this exploration and, as per your own ideas, we should not move on. Please either present repeatable, falsifiable evidence of non-physical perception (NDE's, OBE's or otherwise). Until then, let us not move on.

Just wanted to say how much I enjoy your posts, Loss Leader.

 

[Loss Leader]

Just wanted to say how much I enjoy your posts, Loss Leader.

Thanks. I mean it when I say that I work hard to incorporate all the reasoning provided in everyone's posts.

 

[Jabba]

LL,

- You're saying that even though anecdotes are a poor excuse for evidence, they can point to areas for further study.
- Shouldn't 100 "verified" anecdotes of a particular claim point to further study; and, shouldn't such 'pointing' indicate a 1% chance, at least, that the claim is true?

Jabba,

I'm afraid the above doesn't make sense. There's no such thing as a "verified" anecdote. A verified anecdote would be one that is testable, falsifiable and repeatable. Since, by definition, an anecdote can't be repeated, it can never be verified (not for scientific purposes, anyway)...

LL,

- I accept your point -- that's why I put verified in quotations.
- In these cases, another person (or other persons) said that the particular claim was accurate -- but, this other person could be lying, exaggerating or just not remembering that well and wanting to please...
- In reading the testimonies, the people involved did seem sincere and credible to me -- but then, I am biased...

- I guess that our main difference has to do with our underlying beliefs about immateriality. You believe that science has proven that everything is physical, and that these anecdotes, simply, cannot indicate what they appear to be indicating.
- So far, it seems to me obvious that consciousness, itself, is immaterial -- and consequently, these anecdotes are themselves quite possibly real...

- I'll be back.

 

[Mojo]

- I guess that our main difference has to do with our underlying beliefs about immateriality. You believe that science has proven that everything is physical, and that these anecdotes, simply, cannot indicate what they appear to be indicating.

Strawman.

ETA: and begging the question at the end there. They do not appear to indicate what you claim they appear to indicate.

 

[JayUtah]

This kind of reminds me of the "logic" used for UFO sightings.

That's because it's the same illogic that forms the foundation of most fringe claims, regardless of genre: erode faith in the prevailing story by one standard, then prop up your claim -- using a separate softer standard -- as the default that must hold in its place. The standard by which the conventional narrative is dismissed is usually no more substantial than handwaving FUD.

Jabba tells us all he needs is a "reasonable alternative" to the scientific explanation. He's not going to prove that alternative. He can't, and he knows he can't. But in fringe argumentation doesn't have be testable or falsifiable, because it gets a different standard of proof than the one by which it proposes to reject the mainstream. It just needs to be an alternative. Fringe thought is less about testable claims than it is about embracing anything that's styled as counter to the mainstream. Fringe claimants take pride in the belief that they are the enlightened few. Note Jabba's periodic insistence that he exercises a mode of thought that's not limited by the "analytical" restrictions of his critics.

The immortal soul is Jabba's "reasonable alternative" to a materialist mind, just as space aliens are the "reasonable alternative" for UFOs when swamp gas and weather balloons fall short. Space aliens are "reasonable" because 150 years of modern science fiction has normalized us to the notion of the celestial bodies being worlds possibly inhabited by noble humanoid aliens who want to be our friends (or eat us). Now that's a far cry from what science itself actually believes about the possibility of extraterrestrial life. But that gap doesn't worry the claimants. Similarly Jabba's soul is "reasonable alternative" only because thousands of years of human superstition has normalized us to the idea on an emotional level. And similarly, science muses about the nature of consciousness, and the gap doesn't bother the fringe claimants. The gap bothers skeptics though. The Martians of Heinlein and Bradbury are a romantic notion, but not close enough to science. Similarly while physicists may wax philosophic in their popular books, the science of how the brain actually works doesn't go there, or need to.

But the fatal flaw is not the gap between romanticized notions and their real-world counterparts. It's the way the claimant evades the burden of proof by posing his claim as the default that "must" hold (or at least be seriously considered) if some other claim fails, without any further proof. It's every bit the false dilemma it smells like. The UFO "can't" be an Earth vehicle, so it "must" be not from Earth. The physical mind "can't" produce Jabba's unique consciousness, or float about the room looking at Zener pictures, or see the light at the end of the tunnel -- therefore there "must" be a soul.

Getting someone to accept a proposition on anything other than direct evidence for the proposition should raise intellectual hackles every time it's attempted. We humans are suckers for false dilemmas unless we're careful.

The claim is usually something along the lines of, "but this one sighting couldn't be identified so it must have been an alien craft."

"Science doesn't currently explain NDEs or OBEs well, so there must be a soul."

I've been in and amongst flying machines since my early teens. Despite vast experience with a wide variety of aircraft, I still occasionally see one in a circumstance that catches me off guard. That's the substance of the UFO phenomenon. Have you ever driven on a road approaching a runway at right angles and seen a landing airplane seemingly hover motionless relative to ground features? Have you ever seen an airplane fly in fog at night, where the fog bank and airplane are far enough away that you can't recognize that there is fog?

Our expectations for how things behave are based on canonical expressions of those phenomena, allowing for only slight variation. And this leads us to tell ourselves confidently, "If it were an airplane I would know it. I know what airplanes look like." Well, the largest source of UFO sightings in my state is the California seagull. Or rather, flocks of them. Like many gulls, the bird in question is dark along the top of the wings and back, but with a brilliant breast and underwing surface. Flocking birds, as you're well aware, tend to wheel almost perfectly in unsion as they fly. Now as you look off into the distance and see a flock of these birds flying against a mountain backdrop, they will seem to alternately appear and disappear. And if they're too far away for you to see them as individual birds, you'll think they're one single object.

Now the California seagull is our state bird; there are a lot of them and you see them all the time in parking lots, and on the shores of the lake. If you tell one of our residents that what he saw was a flock of seagulls, he'll happily tell you that he's perfectly capable of recognizing seagulls when he sees them, and what he saw was definitely not a flock of seagulls. Except it very much was -- just not in canonical form. We vastly overestimate our ability to identify things reliably. Even people familiar with airplanes and birds can only recognize them a certain percentage of the time. The remainder are the UFOs.

Similarly we'd like to think that if NDEs and OBEs are the products of an organic brain, we'd recognize them as such. Jabba assumes that all the products of a working organic brain will be unremarkable. It's on that basis he concludes that an out-of-body experience must be supernatural, because it doesn't fit the canonical mold of a natural organic conscious experience. But we challenge that assumption of canon. Brains starved of oxygen or under physiological and chemical stress are akin to airplanes flying in distant fog banks at night -- a rare observation, but not necessarily unremarkable. There is no reason to presume the thoughts that arise under those uncommon neurological conditions should resemble the ordinary consciousness.

No. It means that it couldn't be positively concluded what it was. Nothing more. For all of the sightings that could be fully investigated and a conclusion reached, 100% of them resulted in non-alien explanations. So what are the chances that those sightings that could not be concluded are actually something mundane?

Which is exactly why we explain marginal experiences by refining existing models to include them, not by advancing something wholly unproven and radically different. We know we can identify airplanes and birds only with a certain margin. But fringe claimants drive a wedge of speculation into that margin.

Lack of a firm conclusion is a lack of a firm conclusion.

And the reason we can arrive at firm conclusions in some cases is because it is possible to falsify claims of something being a bird or an airplane. We know the general characteristics of those categories and the specific characteristics of individual examples of them. We can test those known characteristics against the observations and determine whether they fit or don't. When we can't draw a firm conclusion, it's because we don't have enough information to test.

The problem Jabba is having proving his soul is the same problem UFO claimants have proving space aliens. They adopt exactly the same approach, saying that because we don't know of any actual space aliens, we can only speculate about what characteristics they might have. Therefore it's not possible to falsify a UFO claim as not being space aliens, and skeptics don't have a leg to stand on if they doubt the identification. Sadly, scientifically speaking, if you can't falsify it, you can't claim it is space aliens based on evidence.

And this is why it's absolutely essential that Jabba come up with a falsifiable definition for a soul. Only then can we test the data against it. He will not, however, because it forces him to run his soul theory head-to-head with the scientific model on the same level ground with the same advantages and handicaps. And he knows he can't do it. The only way he can "prove immortality mathematically" is by all these deceitful rhetorical and pseudo-statistical shenanigans.

 

[The Sparrow]

.....You believe that science has proven that everything is physical, and that these anecdotes, simply, cannot indicate what they appear to be indicating..........

ah, in other words us skeptics have closed minds and simply don't want to believe.
You're precious in these petty attempts.

Perhaps we actually don't believe these anecdotes are true because THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THEY ARE.

 

[Hokulele]

- So far, it seems to me obvious that consciousness, itself, is immaterial -- and consequently, these anecdotes are themselves quite possibly real.

It doesn't matter how obvious it seems, consciousness is not a thing, and cannot be either material or immaterial. Once again, since you do not seem to be understanding the concept:

Consciousness is NOT a thing.

 

[JayUtah]

I accept your point -- that's why I put verified in quotations.

No, you did that to equivocate in your typical fashion between the notion of rigorous proof you know is required, and the naked claim you know the anecdote to be. It's no different than you trying to hype up a bunch of interpersonal bickering among Shroud investigators as some sort of legitimate grievance against Shroud skeptics.

You can't turn anecdotes into evidence by means of your customary word games.

In reading the testimonies, the people involved did seem sincere and credible to me -- but then, I am biased...

And if that sort of judgment had any place in a scientific inquiry or mathematical proof, your argument might matter. As such it does not. Keep in mind that you have set the standard that must be met by purporting a mathematical proof. If you are unable to meet your proffered standard of proof, you lose the challenge. Get it? It doesn't matter what lower or softer standard of proof your evidence might satisfy.

I guess that our main difference has to do with our underlying beliefs about immateriality.

No, it has to do with your inability to prove your underlying beliefs as you said you thought you could. You keep trying to interpolate your preconceived mush-headed nonsense into the debate as if we should somehow accept it axiomatically. Then you further insult your critics by proposing a reductionist examination, but when we finally drill down to the basic concepts you can't produce the goods. You can't even focus on something as fundamental as "what is a soul?"

You believe that science has proven that everything is physical, and that these anecdotes, simply, cannot indicate what they appear to be indicating.

No.

First, there is no rational relationship between the anecdotes, even taken at face value, and the conclusion you wish to draw from them. It's a logical non sequitur at best. Your appeal to NDEs and OBEs is a non-starter on that basis alone.

Second, you have provided no observation in these anecdotes that transcends the materialist brain. In your mad rush to condemn science as prematurely and unfairly closed-minded, you fail to consider that the "appearance" you're trying to foist is just a wild, unnecessary attribution. That is what you're trying to do, right? You're trying to prove how inadequate skeptics and skepticism are.

So far, it seems to me obvious that consciousness, itself, is immaterial...

No, that's just begging the question as you have done so innumerably already in this "debate."

Things that are truly obvious are the easiest to prove because uncertainty is obviated by clear and present evidence, none of which you have. Whatever you feel in in your heart of hearts is absolutely irrelevant to this debate. You told us you thought you could prove your belief mathematically, but you cannot. It's painfully obvious just how far in over your head you are, so it merely remains to be seen how long you will continue this pointless and insulting charade.

 

[Loss Leader]

- In reading the testimonies, the people involved did seem sincere and credible to me -- but then, I am biased...

I assume that each and every person was sincere and that they were all church aldermen and judges who would never knowingly lie. That doesn't actually make anything they say necessarily true. As has been said, the number of sincere testimonies of successful exorcism of demons probably numbers in the thousands. None of this means demons exist.

- I guess that our main difference has to do with our underlying beliefs about immateriality. You believe that science has proven that everything is physical

No, no, no. A thousand times no. I do not believe that science (which is a method, not a body of knowledge) has "proven that everything is physical." I believe that there is no reason to believe something that is not testable, repeatable and falsifiable.

I am perfectly willing to accept that there is an immaterial world, that such immaterial world may contain immaterial souls, and that such immaterial souls may be immortal. All I ask - all I have ever asked - is the same repeatable, falsifiable evidence I ask from everyone. I hold you to no standard to which I do not hold biologists, evolutionists, geologists, mycologists, musicologists and any other ist you can name.

that these anecdotes, simply, cannot indicate what they appear to be indicating.

I have never said that these anecdotes cannot indicate an immaterial soul. Many anecdotes can and do indicate true things. If I drop a bowling ball on my foot, that's an anecdote that indicates true principles of gravity. Constantine saw a star so bright it was visible in the daytime sky. That was an anecdote. He attributed it to an untestable notion of God. However, it still provides us a starting point to find the proper, testable, falsifiable cause of such a sight (including that the man may have had a stroke).

It is not that anecdotes cannot indicate true things, it is that anecdotes alone are insufficient as evidence of true things. Only falsifiable tests can do that.

You appear to be painting me as some immovable cynic who never would, could or wanted to agree with you about immateriality. In such case, I imagine you would be justified in believing that arguing with me is useless.

But do not be deceived - I stand ready and willing to be shown evidence of anything I did not previously know. Pluto's just a larger-than-average object in an asteroid belt? Fine by me. Worms can live one the edge of boiling sulpher vents under the ocean? You got it. People have immaterial immortal souls? All I need is the same falsifiable evidence collected with the same rigor - nothing more.

So far, it seems to me obvious that consciousness, itself, is immaterial -- and consequently, these anecdotes are themselves quite possibly real

I'm glad that you feel such a belief. Now, go out and do the hard work to convert "quite possibly real" to falsifiably, testably real. Priestley didn't say he thought oxygen was quite possibly real and then go take a nap; he kept working until he had shown experimentally that it was real. And other scientists can and did repeat his experiments to get the same results themselves.

Be Priestley.