Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[Slowvehicle]

Let's see... a 1% chance you are wrong. Looking at it in Bassian statistics (a more funky kind of groove), there is one way you can be right - an immortal soul. There are an infinite number of ways you can be wrong. So 1/inf implies no chance of being right. Sorry, Jabba.

All about dat Bass(ian); no trouble.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- But, I'm 99% sure that I'm right about the potential value of anecdotes such as those found in the book I'm reading (The Self Does Not Die) -- they can increase, or decrease, the prior probability of a scientific hypothesis.

This despite you not being able to present an argument for why this is the case, not being able to rebut any of the arguments against it you've been presented with, and everybody in this thread and the other (with the exception of annnnoid who has a...unique...approach to reason) telling you that you are incorrect and explaining why.

This is not evidence that you are right, this is evidence that you are intransigent, and that you care more for maintaining your beliefs than you do establishing whether or not they are true.

 

[Sideroxylon]

- You want an argument to go with those bald assertions?
- Perhaps some back and forth on at least one of your counter points - an actual discussion no less?
- I'll be back.

 

[Loss Leader]

.
- But, I'm 99% sure that I'm right about the potential value of anecdotes such as those found in the book I'm reading (The Self Does Not Die) -- they can increase, or decrease, the prior probability of a scientific hypothesis.

Jabba,

Just because an anecdote happens to be consistent with the truth, it doesn't mean the anecdote itself is evidence of that truth.

For example, here is a thread with anecdotes about Lorazepram use. And here is a study, double-blinded and published in the British Journal of Psychiatry. The anecdotes mostly agree with the science.

But it doesn't have to be that way. Here is a page full of anecdotes by people who believe they've been abducted by aliens. And here's an article meticulously detailing the effects of sleep paralysis, including those who attributed the incidents to alien abduction.

In fact, we can find support groups full of anecdotes that cannot be true:
Demonic possession
Angels
People who think they're vampires
Racial purity
and anything else you can think of.

Anecdotes have no truth value. They cannot be evidence of anything they assert.

Feel free to be 99% sure of whatever you want. Just recognize that your confidence does not come from fact. It is an unevidenced belief. Enjoy it, if it brings you comfort. But do not try to argue that your faith can be shown to be true. And do not beg for agreement. It's just sad.

 

[Jabba]

LL,
- Somewhere back in time, you told me something to the effect that you had an open mind about this paranormal stuff, but that you haven't seen any evidence for it. I can't find the quote -- could you find it?

- Whatever, as I recall, what you said was at least an implication that you considered such things possible. Obviously, I'm trying to trap you, but do you really consider them possible?

 

[Peregrinus]

Because a thing is, in principle, possible, there's no assurance, lacking evidence, that it's actual.

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

...but do you really consider them possible?

I don't pretend to speak for Loss Leader, but here's my take.

Possible means it hasn't been proven to be impossible. But that doesn't do anything to assign a probability. To assign a probability you need some evidence. Anecdotes are not that evidence. They may suggest something that deserves study, and that study may indicate evidence one way or the other, but they are not, in themselves, evidence.

How about this: I feel the possibility of the soul existing is about one in 10^-100. I feel this number is as well supported as yours. if you put that number in your bayesian equation, what is the possibility you're immortal? And why is your answer better than mine?

 

[Belz...]

LL,
- Somewhere back in time, you told me something to the effect that you had an open mind about this paranormal stuff, but that you haven't seen any evidence for it. I can't find the quote -- could you find it?

- Whatever, as I recall, what you said was at least an implication that you considered such things possible. Obviously, I'm trying to trap you, but do you really consider them possible?

You really suck at this.

 

[JayUtah]

Whatever, as I recall, what you said was at least an implication that you considered such things possible. Obviously, I'm trying to trap you, but do you really consider them possible?

Yes, you're obviously trying to trap us into the semblance of agreement so that you can bask in the glow of your own intellectual prowess. And we've had this discussion at least twice this year already. Clearly it made no impression on you. You are granted a suspension of disbelief so that you may present your case and have it judged on its merits, and not upon the spectre of skeptical prejudice. You are once again trying inappropriately to quantify that suspension of disbelief into a rationale for your made-up 1% probability that you have an immortal soul.

You enjoy a suspension of disbelief while you make your case. You do not enjoy any amount of belief until you actually make it and it is favorably received. Merely begging people to accept your stories and speculations as evidence, and whining petulantly when they rightly do not, is not making a case.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Obviously, I'm trying to trap you[...]

Yes, obviously.

 

[Loss Leader]

LL,
- Somewhere back in time, you told me something to the effect that you had an open mind about this paranormal stuff, but that you haven't seen any evidence for it. I can't find the quote -- could you find it?

- Whatever, as I recall, what you said was at least an implication that you considered such things possible. Obviously, I'm trying to trap you, but do you really consider them possible?

I'm not going digging for the quote, but I'll reaffirm it. I stand ready to believe anything that has testable, falsifiable evidence. I stand ready to believe that the moon is made of green cheese, if astronauts go there, analyze the moon and eat it.

This does not mean that I consider all things to be possible. In fact, it means the opposite. I consider all things to have zero truth value except those that are repeatably testable.

Do not confuse a willingness to believe with holding a belief. My computer's hard drive has blank space on it. It is waiting for anything to be written. But it has no beliefs about what might be written. Consider my brain to be a computer - available space for anything but utterly agnostic about what those things might be.

Once again, begging for agreement is sad. Accept that you have deeply held unevidenced beliefs. Enjoy them. But don't pretend they can be proven to others.

 

[Hokulele]

LL,
- Somewhere back in time, you told me something to the effect that you had an open mind about this paranormal stuff, but that you haven't seen any evidence for it. I can't find the quote -- could you find it?

- Whatever, as I recall, what you said was at least an implication that you considered such things possible. Obviously, I'm trying to trap you, but do you really consider them possible?

I believe anyone who labels themselves as a critical thinker would be willing to change their mind on a subject, provided there is reasoning and evidence to support such a change. An open mind doesn't indicate a willingness to believe anything, but the ability to accept when they are shown to be wrong.

Do you consider yourself to be open minded?

 

[jt512]

Looking at it in Bassian statistics (a more funky kind of groove)...

Do Bassian statistics provide optimal inferences for Count data?

 

[Hokulele]

Do Bassian statistics provide optimal inferences for Count data?

I believe that is Basiean statistics.

 

[JayUtah]

Do not confuse a willingness to believe with holding a belief.

Which is why I prefer the phrase "willing suspension of disbelief." Open-mindedness is an absence of prejudice, not the presence of credulity in any amount.

 

[annnnoid]

He doesn't believe that brain causes consciousness

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

You have a choice to make Argumemnon. You have made these exact claims over and over and over and over. I continually ask you to support these claims...yet you have yet to produce a shred of evidence. That means they are lies.

You can either produce evidence that will demonstrate that you are not lying…or you can be put back on ignore. I couldn’t care less either way.

Anecdotes have no truth value. They cannot be evidence of anything they assert.

I love my wife.

Please explain how this anecdote has zero truth value. Please explain how this anecdote 'cannot be evidence of what it is asserting'...????

I stand ready to believe anything that has testable, falsifiable evidence.

This does not mean that I consider all things to be possible. In fact, it means the opposite. I consider all things to have zero truth value except those that are repeatably testable.

Do you believe that you love your wife? Do let me know how you go about (repeatably) testing / falsifying this conclusion. Is there some particular branch of physics involved? … I’ve got a few divorce attorney’s who I’m sure would pay big bucks for that one.

Once again, begging for agreement is sad.

Actually what is sad is just how blindingly and blatantly silly all of your arguments are. Jabba has absolutely nothing to worry about.

 

[Loss Leader]

Do you believe that you love your wife? Do let me know how you go about (repeatably) testing / falsifying this conclusion. Is there some particular branch of physics involved?

What a poor example. Love, to the extent that it has a falsifiable definition, would be a feeling of deep affection. Here's a test I performed: I had 3 open heart surgeries in 2 years (at one point spending 4 months in the hospital. If I felt a deep affection, I would miss the person. If I felt no affection, I would not. It turns out I missed my wife so badly that they had to call in a psychiatrist to help me deal with it.

It's been established that people look at pictures of people longer if the picture arouses them. (It's one way of diagnosing pedophilia, for example.) If I am not aroused by my wife, I would not look at her picture any longer than any other. And yet I could stare at our wedding album all day.

Physiologically, there is evidence that couples in love develop similar thought patterns when measured with an EEG or MRI. I haven't tested my love in a huge spinning magnet, but this falsifiable test exists.

And then there's the living together, having children, buying her a house, ad nauseam.

… I’ve got a few divorce attorney’s who I’m sure would pay big bucks for that one.

No you don't. I am a divorce attorney with over 20 years practicing in the New York courts and none of us would "pay big bucks" for whatever it is you think you're ta;king about.

 

[annnnoid]

What a poor example. Love, to the extent that it has a falsifiable definition, would be a feeling of deep affection. Here's a test I performed: I had 3 open heart surgeries in 2 years (at one point spending 4 months in the hospital. If I felt a deep affection, I would miss the person. If I felt no affection, I would not. It turns out I missed my wife so badly that they had to call in a psychiatrist to help me deal with it.

It's been established that people look at pictures of people longer if the picture arouses them. (It's one way of diagnosing pedophilia, for example.) If I am not aroused by my wife, I would not look at her picture any longer than any other. And yet I could stare at our wedding album all day.

Physiologically, there is evidence that couples in love develop similar thought patterns when measured with an EEG or MRI. I haven't tested my love in a huge spinning magnet, but this falsifiable test exists.

And then there's the living together, having children, buying her a house, ad nauseam.

This is utter crap (not to mention that you've blatantly contradicted your own argument...I've absolutely no doubt you haven't a clue where or how) but it's late so I guess we’ll have to wait until tomorrow to find out why.

I did notice you strategically avoided answering my challenge to the rest of your nonsense. Here it is again:

I love my wife.

Please explain how this anecdote has zero truth value. Please explain how this anecdote 'cannot be evidence of what it is asserting'...????

...there's a hint there.

Very eloquent. And false. The anecdotes provide evidence that the perception actually happens, but they offer us no way of distinguishing between hypotheses of WHY it happens.

Hans

This is wrong in just about every way any conclusion could be.

An anecdote describes whatever subjective experience is occurring. Tell me Hans…do you know of some other way that subjective experience can be explicitly expressed / adjudicated????

…no, didn’t think so.

As things currently stand, the most advanced scanning technology in the world can barely adjudicate the most elementary cognitive event with any definitive degree of fidelity.

Any subjective experience explicitly implicates relevant cognitive and neural issues….so…QUITE OBVIOUSLY (to just about everyone except all of you)…what is described / expressed / represented in and through any anecdote can provide vast amounts of information that is fundamentally relevant to understanding what is going on both cognitively and neurally. IOW…anecdotal evidence is fundamentally relevant to generating hypothesis relating to why / how those same anecdotes occur. Whether those hypothesis occur in the cognitive domain, the neural domain, or both.

And I’m absolutely positive that there isn’t a cognitive scientist on the planet who isn’t 100% convinced of this after no more than their first week as a freshman!

In addition...if consciousness has some manner of universal phenomenology (as is suggested by some neuroscientists [Christof Koch for example])...then the content of anecdotal evidence assumes even greater relevance since some component (or components) of it may potentially describe / express / represent the experience of a fundamental ontological feature of reality.


…and I’d be absolutely thrilled to tell you all what my qualifications are…if you can tell me how that will change the meaning of a single word that I write!

 

[Mojo]

Have you forgotten that neither of those posters agree with the validity your proof?

But remember that in Jabba's logic if they disagreed with you they support him, just as if "the scientific model" is wrong he's immortal and if the shroud isn't 800 years old it must be authentic. A false dilemma is almost always at the foundation of his argument.

 

[Belz...]

You have a choice to make Argumemnon. You have made these exact claims over and over and over and over. I continually ask you to support these claims...yet you have yet to produce a shred of evidence. That means they are lies.

Again, annnnoid, you are fooling no one. You have argued, repeatedly and vociferously, that we have no idea whas consciousness is. Your almost violent reaction to the idea that consciousness is formed in the brain is clear indication of what you believe.