Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[JayUtah]

so........Hitler was a woman?

What I mean to say is, using Bayesian statistics, can we prove Hitler was a woman?

Following Jabba's proof, all you need is a 1% prior probability, based on this random Googling, that Hitler was a woman. Then you think of an event -- say, the ill-fated Operation Barbarossa. You say that the probability of that being undertaken by a man is infinitesimally small -- say 1 over the number of men who have ever lived. The gender is relevant for Reasons. Then you stir with your Bayesian swizzle stick and you get an incredibly low probability that Hitler was a man given Operation Barbarossa. And Operation Barbarossa did in fact happen, so ipso facto Hitler was a woman.

 

[Nonpareil]

Unfortunately, yeah -- just extremely weak evidence.

Flatly wrong.

They are not even extremely weak evidence. They are, very simply and without wiggle room, not evidence.

And, again, straight-up lying. To go back to annnoid's example, I can very easily type "I love my wife". It's such a commonly accepted thing to love one's wife that I expect that most would accept it unquestioningly. Yet I'm not and never have been married. The fact that I claim to love my wife is not evidence that I do, let alone that I actually have a wife.

Precisely.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I am busy now so…fortunately for me…I don’t have much time to waste on this stupid thread.

…but I have to say…the level of argument by those disputing my position is almost embarrassing. Actually …correction…it IS embarrassing.

Anecdotes / personal accounts / self report…whatever you want to call them…BY DEFINITION…have evidential relevance. For quite a number of reasons, but I’ll confine myself to what should by now be blindingly obvious to anyone with even a fraction of a brain.

Every single one of you who posts on this forum implicitly subscribes to this FACT (the [at the very least] potential evidential legitimacy [‘truth’…in some way shape or form] of the content of anecdotes / personal accounts / self-report / self-expression). You expect the content of your posts to convey meaning that is relevant to this discussion. The content of your posts describes what you are thinking / feeling. It is evidence…presumably credible, legitimate, relevant evidence of what you are thinking / feeling.

…and if it is not (evidence) …as just about all of you keep arguing (personal accounts / self-report / anecdotes have NO evidentiary legitimacy)…WHY ON EARTH ARE YOU MAKING THESE POSTS !?!?!?!?
You are all basically arguing…that what you are saying / writing / expressing (here, there, anywhere) has no meaning and can be ignored not only by everyone else (because it is evidence of nothing) but also by you who are expressing it. A first-week psychology undergrad would immediately indentify this as a recipe for insanity (…”what I am writing / saying right now has no meaning…”)!

And why are all of you sooooooooo desperate to confirm this dumb argument????... because otherwise you have to acknowledge that NDE’s OBE’s (whatever etc. etc. etc.) have some manner of legitimacy. And you’d rather stick poison darts in your eyes and proclaim your own insanity than do that (and …congratulations…you are all succeeding!).

…that none of you are capable of recognizing the inherent idiocy of your own argument is…like I said…embarrassing, but I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised.

Nice. About the highlighted part: Where has anybody claimed our opinions are evidence? They are just that: Opinions. Or, if you like, anecdotes which might indicate that scientific research could be useful.

Do you think that YOUR entries here are evidence? ... Oh dear.

Hans

 

[godless dave]

- The latter...

So you want to use what you call very weak evidence, and the rest of us call no evidence at all, that H includes immaterial souls, so that you can get a value of P(E|H) that depends on H including immaterial souls?

 

[Dancing David]

- I'm not sure how much I'm allowed to quote, nor the proper thread for this quote, but the following seems like it ought to go somewhere (don't be a smartalec), and this is my best guess...

Intermezzo: Can Specific Descriptions of Resuscitation Procedures Be Explained by Factors Like Prior Knowledge? Perceptions during NDEs of specific correct details about doctors or nurses involved in a resuscitation procedure usually provide enough evidence to justify the conclusion that those perceptions cannot be attributed to chance hits or prior knowledge. Both cardiologist Michael Sabom and medical investigator and PhD-level nurse Penny Sartori have examined more generally whether NDErs’ descriptions of resuscitation procedures are, on average, more correct than the descriptions of cardiac patients who have not had NDEs. If NDErs’ accounts were not more correct, it would follow that their perceptions were the result of chance or prior knowledge. As material for comparison, Sabom used a group of cardiac patients not reporting NDEs who had never been resuscitated. For her investigation, Sartori used a group of patients who had likewise never reported an NDE but had been resuscitated. Despite the difference in comparison groups, both investigators determined that the NDErs’ descriptions were markedly more correct and believable than those of the comparison groups. For example, the NDErs reported many more accurate details, and the comparison groups of patients without near-death experiences made greater errors in their descriptions. These latter patients did not know, for instance, on which parts of the body the electrical “pads” (small, self-adhering cushions) or “paddles” (metal disks) of a defibrillator were placed, or they thought that an electric shock was a standard component of the procedure. Some patients from the comparison groups had no idea about resuscitation procedures
at all, and others had a distorted notion that was based on popular TV shows. Both investigators concluded from their studies that normal factors like prior knowledge, guesswork, or pure coincidence do not offer an acceptable explanation for correct extrasensory perceptions of resuscitation procedures. In her blog of October 5, 2011, Sartori wrote: “Anomalous well documented cases like this cannot be explained by current scientific explanations.” SOURCES Sabom, M. B. (1982). Recollections of death: A medical investigation. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Sartori, P. (2008). The near-death experiences of hospitalized intensive care patients: A five year clinical study. Lewiston, UK: Edwin Mellen Press.

Rivas, Titus; Dirven,Anny; Smit,Rudolf. The Self Does Not Die: Verified Paranormal Phenomena from Near-Death Experiences (pp. 8-9). International Association for Near-Death Studies. Kindle Edition.

Not really a research citation in any way, please find the original source material

 

[JayUtah]

So you want to use what you call very weak evidence, and the rest of us call no evidence at all, that H includes immaterial souls, so that you can get a value of P(E|H) that depends on H including immaterial souls?

He claimed that at one time, but the latest incarnation (pun intended) of his theory is that the 1% prior probability of ~H is what he's aiming at. P(H) is 0.99 in his formulation, P(~H) therefore being 0.01 and rationally justified by NDEs. H is something along the lines of OOFLAM or "the scientific hypothesis." That's all he needs if he then says P(E|H) is zero in the limit and runs a Bayesian computation.

 

[MRC_Hans]

- I'm not sure how much I'm allowed to quote, nor the proper thread for this quote, but the following seems like it ought to go somewhere (don't be a smartalec), and this is my best guess...

Intermezzo: Can Specific Descriptions of Resuscitation Procedures Be Explained by Factors Like Prior Knowledge? Perceptions during NDEs of specific correct details about doctors or nurses involved in a resuscitation procedure usually provide enough evidence to justify the conclusion that those perceptions cannot be attributed to chance hits or prior knowledge. Both cardiologist Michael Sabom and medical investigator and PhD-level nurse Penny Sartori have examined more generally whether NDErs’ descriptions of resuscitation procedures are, on average, more correct than the descriptions of cardiac patients who have not had NDEs. If NDErs’ accounts were not more correct, it would follow that their perceptions were the result of chance or prior knowledge. As material for comparison, Sabom used a group of cardiac patients not reporting NDEs who had never been resuscitated. For her investigation, Sartori used a group of patients who had likewise never reported an NDE but had been resuscitated. Despite the difference in comparison groups, both investigators determined that the NDErs’ descriptions were markedly more correct and believable than those of the comparison groups. For example, the NDErs reported many more accurate details, and the comparison groups of patients without near-death experiences made greater errors in their descriptions. These latter patients did not know, for instance, on which parts of the body the electrical “pads” (small, self-adhering cushions) or “paddles” (metal disks) of a defibrillator were placed, or they thought that an electric shock was a standard component of the procedure. Some patients from the comparison groups had no idea about resuscitation procedures
at all, and others had a distorted notion that was based on popular TV shows. Both investigators concluded from their studies that normal factors like prior knowledge, guesswork, or pure coincidence do not offer an acceptable explanation for correct extrasensory perceptions of resuscitation procedures. In her blog of October 5, 2011, Sartori wrote: “Anomalous well documented cases like this cannot be explained by current scientific explanations.” SOURCES Sabom, M. B. (1982). Recollections of death: A medical investigation. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Sartori, P. (2008). The near-death experiences of hospitalized intensive care patients: A five year clinical study. Lewiston, UK: Edwin Mellen Press.

Rivas, Titus; Dirven,Anny; Smit,Rudolf. The Self Does Not Die: Verified Paranormal Phenomena from Near-Death Experiences (pp. 8-9). International Association for Near-Death Studies. Kindle Edition.

They compared people who had experienced NDEs with people who had not? Ehrm, how?

Anecdotes, even from qualified people are not realiable. Do you know the anecdote that maternity wards are more busy at full moon? Even experienced nurses and midwives will often attest to this. ... Now look up daily birth rates in the national statistics and compare to moon phases for correlation.

There is none.

Hans

 

[JayUtah]

The fact that I claim to love my wife is not evidence that I do, let alone that I actually have a wife.

And that speaks to something very important. If I, not knowing you previously, heard you say that, I would be thereby made to believe that you had a wife and that you loved her. I would have no reason to doubt you, and you might seem very sober and sincere when you said it. An anecdote's ability to engender belief is not the issue, yet we see Jabba and his authors applying precisely those credibility-based arguments.

"Do you believe I have a wife?" is very much a different question than "What is the probability I have a wife?" Jabba can't seem to comprehend the difference. He wants all this credulity-mongering to have an actual statistical effect.

 

[JayUtah]

They compared people who had experienced NDEs with people who had not? Ehrm, how?

There were no standardized empirical or statistical controls in their studies, which is why they published in the popular press instead of the medical literature.

 

[Jabba]

So would you agree that if someone writes a book saying that other people said certain things happened, that constitutes evidence that those things happened?

dave,
- Unfortunately, yeah -- just extremely weak evidence.

Why do you say "unfortunately"? Because you know most of us will disagree with you? Or because you realize the problems with accepting them as evidence?

- The latter...

So you want to use what you call very weak evidence, and the rest of us call no evidence at all, that H includes immaterial souls, so that you can get a value of P(E|H) that depends on H including immaterial souls?

Dave,

- No.
- In the original question, hilited above, you gave almost no information about the particular book. I'd say that almost any claim has some evidentiary value -- just that the less supported the claim, the less valuable the claim.

 

[JayUtah]

I'd say that almost any claim has some evidentiary value -- just that the less supported the claim, the less valuable the claim.

No. Claims are not evidence; they do not have evidentiary value. They may, in some cases, engender belief but they are not themselves evidence. Evidence is fact that bears on the truthfulness of the claim. I agree with my colleagues; you really have no concept of what evidence actually consists of.

 

[Nonpareil]

I'd say that almost any claim has some evidentiary value

And you would be wrong.

Claims have no value as evidence. None.

This is not something that you are going to overturn. It is not something that can be argued. It is not a matter of opinion, or bias, or the horrible skeptics trying to twist things to make them more difficult for claims that they don't like. It is simple fact.

Anecdotes are not evidence.

Claims are not evidence.

That is where it stops.

 

[Jabba]

Jabba,

Each successive post of yours makes me sadder and sadder. After being shot down about "anecdotes" but learning about "case studies," you try to conflate and confuse the two concepts. You make synonyms out of "anecdotes" and "studies."...

LL,
- The following was mostly intended for you...
- What I quoted was just an example of how careful the researchers were trying to be. Scientific issues vary in their ability to be controlled for study; so, we do the best we can; and, we try to accord the appropriate reliability. The AWARE project is continuing, but until the second project is finished, we probably won't have a fully controlled study providing significant info.
- I'm just saying that what we have so far does provide some evidence for what they call veridical perception, which supports the possibility of consciousness existing outside the brain, which supports the possibility of life after death.

- I'm not sure how much I'm allowed to quote, nor the proper thread for this quote, but the following seems like it ought to go somewhere (don't be a smartalec), and this is my best guess...

Intermezzo: Can Specific Descriptions of Resuscitation Procedures Be Explained by Factors Like Prior Knowledge? Perceptions during NDEs of specific correct details about doctors or nurses involved in a resuscitation procedure usually provide enough evidence to justify the conclusion that those perceptions cannot be attributed to chance hits or prior knowledge. Both cardiologist Michael Sabom and medical investigator and PhD-level nurse Penny Sartori have examined more generally whether NDErs’ descriptions of resuscitation procedures are, on average, more correct than the descriptions of cardiac patients who have not had NDEs. If NDErs’ accounts were not more correct, it would follow that their perceptions were the result of chance or prior knowledge. As material for comparison, Sabom used a group of cardiac patients not reporting NDEs who had never been resuscitated. For her investigation, Sartori used a group of patients who had likewise never reported an NDE but had been resuscitated. Despite the difference in comparison groups, both investigators determined that the NDErs’ descriptions were markedly more correct and believable than those of the comparison groups. For example, the NDErs reported many more accurate details, and the comparison groups of patients without near-death experiences made greater errors in their descriptions. These latter patients did not know, for instance, on which parts of the body the electrical “pads” (small, self-adhering cushions) or “paddles” (metal disks) of a defibrillator were placed, or they thought that an electric shock was a standard component of the procedure. Some patients from the comparison groups had no idea about resuscitation procedures
at all, and others had a distorted notion that was based on popular TV shows. Both investigators concluded from their studies that normal factors like prior knowledge, guesswork, or pure coincidence do not offer an acceptable explanation for correct extrasensory perceptions of resuscitation procedures. In her blog of October 5, 2011, Sartori wrote: “Anomalous well documented cases like this cannot be explained by current scientific explanations.” SOURCES Sabom, M. B. (1982). Recollections of death: A medical investigation. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Sartori, P. (2008). The near-death experiences of hospitalized intensive care patients: A five year clinical study. Lewiston, UK: Edwin Mellen Press.

Rivas, Titus; Dirven,Anny; Smit,Rudolf. The Self Does Not Die: Verified Paranormal Phenomena from Near-Death Experiences (pp. 8-9). International Association for Near-Death Studies. Kindle Edition.

 

[John Jones]

Dave,

[...] I'd say that almost any claim has some evidentiary value --

Of course you do. If you couldn't make appeals to pseudo science and just about every logical fallacy I've heard of, you have nothing at all.

I expect you to start making spelling flames against your opponents any day now. Remember to make spelling mistakes while doing so.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I'd say that almost any claim has some evidentiary value -- just that the less supported the claim, the less valuable the claim.

What you're actually saying here, if you stop and think about it, is that the anecdote itself doesn't have any evidentiary value, but that any evidence supporting it does.

 

[JayUtah]

The following was mostly intended for you...

Then you should have sent him a private message. Since you posted it in public, in support of your public claims, it has received public comment. You are deliberately ignoring that comment, which indicates you are not capable of answering it. You must know at some level that the stunt you're trying to pull is dishonest.

What I quoted was just an example of how careful the researchers were trying to be.

No. You have no idea how careful the researchers were trying to be because you have no knowledge of the original sources. You have merely quote-mined what your authors wanted you to know about those studies.

we do the best we can...

Sometimes the best you can do is not good enough by scientific standards. It may be good enough, as in this case, to warrant writing books intended for popular consumption because anyone can write a book on anything, even alien abduction. But it does not achieve scientific rigor simply because you did the best you could. It achieves scientific rigor when it is able to conform suitably to the scientific method.

I'm just saying that what we have so far does provide some evidence...

No. You have provided popular pseudoscience. While there has been lip service paid to the scientific method, that is for popular consumption. There is no actual rigor, and therefore there is no actual evidence. You get fooled by this all the time.

...which supports the possibility of life after death.

Absolutely not. Did you miss the part where the doctor you quote-mined explicitly repudiated the purported connection between his findings and life after death?

 

[Hokulele]

LL,
- The following was mostly intended for you...
- What I quoted was just an example of how careful the researchers were trying to be. Scientific issues vary in their ability to be controlled for study; so, we do the best we can; and, we try to accord the appropriate reliability. The AWARE project is continuing, but until the second project is finished, we probably won't have a fully controlled study providing significant info.
- I'm just saying that what we have so far does provide some evidence for what they call veridical perception, which supports the possibility of consciousness existing outside the brain, which supports the possibility of life after death.

And how is what you posted supportive of the claim that "people who have NDEs leave their bodies", as opposed to "people who have NDEs are subconsciously aware of their surroundings"? Even if this were a controlled, medical study, what about it makes any one hypothesis more likely than any other?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dave,
- I haven't read the book, but I'd sure be surprised if there is no extra terrestrial life...

My Dear Mr. Savage:

Please be aware that this is a transparent evasion of the question you pretend to be answering.

I remain tiresomely yours, &ct.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dave,
- It could. Wormholes?

...evidence...?

 

[annnnoid]

Nice. About the highlighted part: Where has anybody claimed our opinions are evidence? They are just that: Opinions. Or, if you like, anecdotes which might indicate that scientific research could be useful.

Do you think that YOUR entries here are evidence? ... Oh dear.

Hans

Are your posts (aka: anecdotes / personal accounts / self-reports) evidence of your thoughts and feelings…or are your posts NOT evidence of your thoughts and feelings?

If these posts that you waste your time writing are not conveying your thoughts and feelings…what are they conveying???????? And if they are conveying your thoughts and feelings then they are, by definition, evidence of same. And if they are evidence then, presumably, you are not going to be so contrary as to argue that your own posts have no truth value, no relevance, no meaning (…are you????)!

…so…either anecdotes / personal accounts / self-reports (including your posts) have evidential relevance…or they don’t. If they don’t…then why are you posting? You are essentially claiming that your own arguments mean nothing! A definition for insanity.

Does that explain it…or is it necessary to make things even more simple for you. Oh dear!

I’d sure like to know what manner of scientific research you subject your thoughts and feelings to. Can’t say I know anyone outside of an outright psychopath who engages in such activity. In fact…I had this very discussion with another member by the name of Pixy Misa some time ago where he insisted that the scientific method was the only valid method of adjudicating evidence of any kind (including his own thoughts and feelings…literally).

…unfortunately we established that if anyone was so blindingly stupid as to apply this idiotic philosophy to their own life…they basically wouldn’t have one.

Why?...because the scientific method imposes such a strict regimen of checks and balances on every data point that nothing would get done.

So much for science!