Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[Mojo]

Jabba, what about using Bayesian statistics to contrast the two hypotheses? If H₁ is the model where each of us has an immaterial self connected to our physical body and H₂ is the model where our selves our solely our physical bodies, you could estimate P(E|H₁) and P(E|H₂) and see which is more likely.

Last time he was forced to do that he had to abandon the thread for 17 months before trying to post the reset in a new thread.

 

[MRC_Hans]

You and Jabba are using the word "anecdote" differently. Jabba means it as some story someone tells after the fact.

You are speaking about patient feedback. Unlike anecdotes, controls exist. Researchers do not discard patient feedback that they dislike and only curate that which they enjoy. Researchers will also develop controls - seeking feedback from patients not treated in order to compare the two groups. Importantly, researchers will be absolutely transparent about their methods. This allows their experiments to be repeatable.

There's a huge gulf between Jabba's hopes for anecdotes and the appropriate manner in which you consider them.

Exactly! And what they can be used for. NDE is a good example:

There exist a lot of anecdotes of perceptions reported by people who have recovered from critical illness. They have roughly the same content: A tunnel leading to light, sometimes figures of light.

This mass of anecdotes constitute evidence that those observations exist and are shared by many people. We can assume that it is not just some random dream or fabrication from a single individual.

What it does NOT provide evidence for is the cause of these experiences. This is true no matter how many of the anecdotes we might collect. Even if we might repeat the NDE (cause a critical condition in a test person), it would not tell us anything about the cause.

All we can conclude is that people have these experiences. Whatever the reason, it is likely that it is the same for all people, so no number of repetitions will favor any one hypothesis.

Hans

 

[Belz...]

What are your formal qualifications in cognitive science?

Oh, I'll answer that: his qualifications is that no one has ever found a way to show that the brain adjudicates consciousness. That's about it. He doesn't believe that brain causes consciousness, and thus that's all he needs to know.

 

[JayUtah]

Oh, I'll answer that: his qualifications is that no one has ever found a way to show that the brain adjudicates consciousness. That's about it. He doesn't believe that brain causes consciousness, and thus that's all he needs to know.

Yes, that much is clear. What I hoped to glean was the basis of his authority to claim that anecdotal evidence -- as we are using the term here -- is vital in mainstream cognitive science. Normally such a claim would be probative only if the claimant has some deep involvement with that science that rose above that of the lay observer. Usually when a claimant evades that question, it suffices as an admission that the proffered characterization lacks authority. Subsequently he revealed that he is confusing a clinical interview with an anecdote.

 

[Hokulele]

I don't think it really matters what annnoid's expertise may be, I would be content with him linking an example of a scientific study where the conclusions were based on anecdotes. It is claims like this that led to the belief that chiropractors practice medicine.

 

[Belz...]

All you'll get is arguments from incredulity.

 

[annnnoid]

You and Jabba are using the word "anecdote" differently. Jabba means it as some story someone tells after the fact.

You are speaking about patient feedback. Unlike anecdotes, controls exist. Researchers do not discard patient feedback that they dislike and only curate that which they enjoy. Researchers will also develop controls - seeking feedback from patients not treated in order to compare the two groups. Importantly, researchers will be absolutely transparent about their methods. This allows their experiments to be repeatable.

An anecdote is a (typically) verbal (or written) representation of subjective experience.

Thus…the ‘anecdotal activity’ expressed by a patient in an fMRI situation is no different than the ‘anecdotal activity’ expressed by a patient during a therapy session. Your post is an anecdote.

There's a huge gulf between Jabba's hopes for anecdotes and the appropriate manner in which you consider them

If there is some specifically nuanced form that describes how the word ‘anecdote’ is supposedly being applied here…it is certainly far from apparent in statements like these:

(My bolding.)


No. They (anecdotes) may agree or disagree with certain hypotheses, but they will never be considered evidence. Stop trying to dilute the meaning of evidence. Seriously, stop it.

(Can anecdotes support, or counter, a scientific hypothesis?)

NO.

YES….when the hypothesis in question relates to the activity, content, origins, and phenomenology of anecdotes themselves.

You do understand what is meant by "anecdote", yes?

… you do understand that there does not exist an empirical definition for the word, yes? Why is that…and how is it relevant to this discussion?

Exactly! And what they can be used for. NDE is a good example:

There exist a lot of anecdotes of perceptions reported by people who have recovered from critical illness. They have roughly the same content: A tunnel leading to light, sometimes figures of light.

This mass of anecdotes constitute evidence that those observations exist and are shared by many people. We can assume that it is not just some random dream or fabrication from a single individual.

What it does NOT provide evidence for is the cause of these experiences. This is true no matter how many of the anecdotes we might collect. Even if we might repeat the NDE (cause a critical condition in a test person), it would not tell us anything about the cause.

All we can conclude is that people have these experiences. Whatever the reason, it is likely that it is the same for all people, so no number of repetitions will favor any one hypothesis.

Hans

It most indisputably DOES provide evidence for the cause IF the cause includes some variety of consciousness-related influence. It ALSO provides potential evidence for the cause in relation to whatever cognitive issues are involved. It does not provide definitive evidence since there is no way to empirically adjudicate these issues (and there does not exist anything remotely resembling a definitive theory of mind). Since we do not as yet know whether or not consciousness itself has any explicit phenomenology (or ontology) the possibility that it does has to provided for. So far anecdotal evidence is a valid expression of this form…therefore it has implicit evidentiary relevance.

Oh, I'll answer that: his qualifications is that no one has ever found a way to show that the brain adjudicates consciousness. That's about it. He doesn't believe that brain causes consciousness, and thus that's all he needs to know.

Show me an empirical definition for the word ‘consciousness’ that we may establish its empirical connection to explicit neural activity.

Once you’ve don’t that…you can update this little quote:

"We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain and we do not know whether consciousness can emerge from non-biological systems, such as computers.”

He doesn't believe that brain causes consciousness, and thus that's all he needs to know.

…show me where I have ever….ever…made that claim or anything remotely resembling it.

Yes, that much is clear. What I hoped to glean was the basis of his authority to claim that anecdotal evidence -- as we are using the term here -- is vital in mainstream cognitive science. Normally such a claim would be probative only if the claimant has some deep involvement with that science that rose above that of the lay observer. Usually when a claimant evades that question, it suffices as an admission that the proffered characterization lacks authority. Subsequently he revealed that he is confusing a clinical interview with an anecdote.

You’ve done a truly exceptional job at describing a fallacy. You seem pretty good at it. Once you’ve come up with the name for what you’ve done (here’s a hint: argument from authority)…why don’t you give Argumenmnons credibility a try (here’s another hint: bare assertion / hand waving [cause neither you nor he will find a shred of evidence to support anything he’s said]).

 

[Hokulele]

In that post, you first provide a definition of the word "anecdote", then you claim there is no empirical definition of the word "anecdote"?

Maybe it is the word "empirical" you do not understand.

 

[Belz...]

"We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain and we do not know whether consciousness can emerge from non-biological systems, such as computers.”

Since this is the only quote you've ever used on these forums, I can only assume that it's the only one you found. Cherry-picking a single quote because it agrees with you is not very convincing.

…show me where I have ever….ever…made that claim or anything remotely resembling it.

See above. You keep arguing for the soul, whether you want to or not.

 

[annnnoid]

In that post, you first provide a definition of the word "anecdote", then you claim there is no empirical definition of the word "anecdote"?

Maybe it is the word "empirical" you do not understand.

Is an operational definition the same thing as an empirical definition? In science, an empirical definition is one that is explicitly quantifiably differentiated.

 

[annnnoid]

Since this is the only quote you've ever used on these forums, I can only assume that it's the only one you found. Cherry-picking a single quote because it agrees with you is not very convincing.

Because that quote very succinctly and effectively summarizes the situation (not to mention that it's authors are a group of cog sci researchers who are still in agreement with the conclusions).

...so rather than whining about it...impress everyone and demonstrate how it is wrong!

See above. You keep arguing for the soul, whether you want to or not.

…show me where I have ever….ever…made that argument or anything remotely resembling it.

 

[Hokulele]

Is an operational definition the same thing as an empirical definition? In science, an empirical definition is one that is explicitly quantifiably differentiated.

What? "Empirical" relates to observation, not quantification.

Regardless, please link to a scientific study where the conclusion is based on anecdotes.

 

[JayUtah]

Thus…the ‘anecdotal activity’ expressed by a patient...

Equivocation. You're talking about a subject or patient interview, not an anecdote.

…it is certainly far from apparent in statements like these:

Irrelevant. The nuance into which you're trying to drive your wedge was already discussed.

YES….

No, because there is only the purport of the relevant causality.

What are your formal qualifications in cognitive science?

It does not provide definitive evidence since there is no way to empirically adjudicate these issues...

That's the question at hand. There is no statistical or empirical control in the anecdotes in question here. Therefore there is not any of the sort of evidence that would apply to the conclusion Jabba is trying to draw from it here, which is an empirical or statistical justification for a quantified conclusion.

Show me an empirical definition for the word ‘consciousness’ that we may establish its empirical connection to explicit neural activity.

What are your formal qualifications in cognitive science?

 

[Belz...]

Because that quote very succinctly and effectively summarizes the situation

No. Because it agrees with you, and you can't stand the idea that you're wrong on this topic. In fact, you can't stand it so much that you're hiding behind incredulity in order to avoid actually learning anything that might threaten your belief about it.

…show me where I have ever….ever…made that argument or anything remotely resembling it.

Denial won't help you now. Not after all this time, annnnoid. We're all very familiar with your "argument".

 

[Belz...]

What are your formal qualifications in cognitive science?

Here are his qualifications:

"We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain and we do not know whether consciousness can emerge from non-biological systems, such as computers.”

 

[JayUtah]

Here are his qualifications:

Then I'll also ask what are his formal qualifications in computer science.

 

[Jabba]

I just shared something ‘in your favor.’

This….

(My bolding.)

No. They may agree or disagree with certain hypotheses, but they will never be considered evidence. Stop trying to dilute the meaning of evidence. Seriously, stop it.

…is utter unqualified crap!

Annnnoid,
- Thanks very much.

 

[Belz...]

Annnnoid,
- Thanks very much.

That someone agrees with you should ring alarm bells, jabba, and inform you that this person is also wrong.

 

[Hokulele]

Annnnoid,
- Thanks very much.

Note that annnnoid did not give you any reasoning behind that assertion, nor any evidence that his assertion is true. Accepting an argument simply because it agrees with your own beliefs isn't exactly a shining example of critical thinking.

 

[JayUtah]

Thanks very much.

Accepting an argument simply because it agrees with your own beliefs isn't exactly a shining example of critical thinking.

Indeed, doesn't it bother you, Jabba, that you keep supplying evidence that convinces your critics you're only after praise and acclaim, and not apparently interested in the actual problems with your proof?