Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[annnnoid]

No you didn't. You told me you would discuss your qualifications if I explained why they would be relevant to the discussion. I did so in a post several days ago, to which you did not respond. Your latest offering claims you don't need qualifications in order to dispute my posts, however that doesn't even address -- much less rebut -- the reasons I listed for relevance.

Why are you afraid of answering questions relating to your qualifications?

I quite obviously did respond.

Once again…it is right there in black and white.

…and you didn’t show anything. I asked you to demonstrate how the meaning of the words I write will change depending on my qualifications. That is exactly what I said. Go and read the words.

....right there in black and white!

Obviously, the meaning of my words doesn’t change a bit. How you interpret them may change…but that’s your problem. I have no interest in playing that game.

If you have an issue with the argument…then address the argument. If you lack the ability to do that…then that is not my problem.

 

[annnnoid]

No, the whole reason anecdotes as evidence is being discussed is specifically due to the lack thereof for NDEs. You may want to re-read the previous dozen or so pages. You were the one claiming that 3 million+ hits in Google scholar supported the notion that anecdotes were accepted as scientific evidence when it comes to NDE studies.

There are actual scientific studies (right there…do I actually have to provide links to them!?!?!?!?!) that use NDE anecdotal evidence to support / dismiss various hypothesis.

Thus…NDE anecdotal evidence is accepted in science.

IS THERE ANY OTHER CONCLUSION THAT CAN BE ARRIVED AT????????

This was shown to be a dishonest claim. That is all.

Of course Hokulele. Right there…IN BLACK AND WHITE…are actual links to legitimate scientific studies that use NDE anecdotal evidence to support / dismiss various hypothesis.

…but somehow claiming that NDE anecdotal evidence is used to support / dismiss various scientific hypothesis…is dishonest.

…I must apologize…but your logic escapes me.

 

[annnnoid]

No


As I've explained, it's because we take linguistic shortcuts for social reasons.

It has nothing to do with evidence of proof.

The words ARE the 'proof'. But for someone who does not believe his wife when she says she's just eaten a piece of cheese...I'm guessing nothing will be sufficient.

 

[JayUtah]

I quite obviously did respond.

You wrote a post, but the post didn't address any of the reasons I had previously given why your qualifications in cognitive science were relevant to the argument you were making.

If you have an issue with the argument…then address the argument. If you lack the ability to do that…then that is not my problem.

The rationale I gave for relevance explains why your argument fares differently depending on whether you have formal qualifications in cognitive science. You didn't address that rationale. You seem very eager to shift the focus to what you represent as having been posted by your critics. But as I've stated, my rationale for relevance has nothing to do with what anyone else posts, or even if they post. It has entirely to do with what you post and the basis on which it rests.

Now what are your formal qualifications in cognitive science?

 

[abaddon]

There are actual scientific studies (right there…do I actually have to provide links to them!?!?!?!?!) that use NDE anecdotal evidence to support / dismiss various hypothesis.

Thus…NDE anecdotal evidence is accepted in science.

IS THERE ANY OTHER CONCLUSION THAT CAN BE ARRIVED AT????????

Yup. you simply dislike it.

Of course Hokulele. Right there…IN BLACK AND WHITE…are actual links to legitimate scientific studies that use NDE anecdotal evidence to support / dismiss various hypothesis.

Hypotheses is the word you sought. Still wrong, though despite the lack of spelling.

…but somehow claiming that NDE anecdotal evidence is used to support / dismiss various scientific hypothesis…is dishonest.

…I must apologize…but your logic escapes me.

It's a honking great mass of unevidenced claims. How that escapes you is anyone's guess.

 

[JayUtah]

There are actual scientific studies ... that use NDE anecdotal evidence to support / dismiss various hypothesis.

I don't believe that you have read all 3 million citations and can therefore speak with authority on exactly what capacity they may use near-death anecdotes or to what extent they consider them probative. In fact I don't believe you have read even one of them. Further, I suggest that the evaluation to which I allude above would require an appropriate qualification in the relevant sciences, such as to evaluate it within the framework of accepted practice in the field. It is unclear whether you are claiming such a qualification.

 

[abaddon]

The words ARE the 'proof'. But for someone who does not believe his wife when she says she's just eaten a piece of cheese...I'm guessing nothing will be sufficient.

Why do you insist on the existence of a soul?

 

[annnnoid]

You wrote a post, but the post didn't address any of the reasons I had previously given why your qualifications in cognitive science were relevant to the argument you were making.



The rationale I gave for relevance explains why your argument fares differently depending on whether you have formal qualifications in cognitive science. You didn't address that rationale. You seem very eager to shift the focus to what you represent as having been posted by your critics. But as I've stated, my rationale for relevance has nothing to do with what anyone else posts, or even if they post. It has entirely to do with what you post and the basis on which it rests.

Now what are your formal qualifications in cognitive science?

I most certainly did address that rationale. The legitimacy of my response is not a function of your willingness to agree with it.

...and if what I post is of such paramount importance...why are you so reluctant to identify the issue in question???? If all you want is an argument from authority...then I'll just say I've got a PhD in molecular biology and be done with it. I'm right...you're wrong...because I know what I'm talking about, and you don't.

My qualifications are not even irrelevant. On these threads any argument should stand on its own merits...so either address the arguments I make or don't bother responding. This has become a waste of my time.

I have clearly identified numerous examples of either intentional or unintentional dishonesty and contradictions on both your part and many others who have posted here. Let me know when you have something to say about THAT!

 

[annnnoid]

I don't believe that you have read all 3 million citations and can therefore speak with authority on exactly what capacity they may use near-death anecdotes or to what extent they consider them probative. In fact I don't believe you have read even one of them. Further, I suggest that the evaluation to which I allude above would require an appropriate qualification in the relevant sciences, such as to evaluate it within the framework of accepted practice in the field. It is unclear whether you are claiming such a qualification.

...now THIS is a straw-man. We are NOT discussing the authenticity of NDE's here. We ARE discussing anecdotal evidence. This has been made blindingly clear innumerable times. That is the reason a thread was generated in the science section specifically to address THIS issue. You yourself participated in that very thread.

The issue here is the relevance...scientific or otherwise...of anecdotal evidence.

It has CLEARLY been established that anecdotal evidence has fundamental normative relevance. It has CLEARLY been established that anecdotal evidence CAN have explicit scientific relevance.

...AND...it has CLEARLY been established that NDE anecdotal evidence can be and has been used to support / dismiss scientific hypothesis.

ALL of you have CLEARLY either ridiculed, disputed, or outright dismissed every one of these conclusions at some point or other....or consistently.

...and anyone who wants to dispute THAT conclusion should first have a look at all those quotes I introduced earlier.

 

[abaddon]

...now THIS is a straw-man. We are NOT discussing the authenticity of NDE's here.

No. The OP is a proposal of mathematical proof for immortality.

We ARE discussing anecdotal evidence.

Nope that is not the topic at hand.

This has been made blindingly clear innumerable times. That is the reason a thread was generated in the science section specifically to address THIS issue. You yourself participated in that very thread.

And for some reason you ignore it, why is that?

The issue here is the relevance...scientific or otherwise...of anecdotal evidence.

No it isn't. Are you somehow unable to read the OP?

It has CLEARLY been established that anecdotal evidence has fundamental normative relevance. It has CLEARLY been established that anecdotal evidence CAN have explicit scientific relevance.

Why do you believe in souls?

...AND...it has CLEARLY been established that NDE anecdotal evidence can be and has been used to support / dismiss scientific hypothesis.

I get that. Why do you believe in souls?

ALL of you have CLEARLY either ridiculed, disputed, or outright dismissed every one of these conclusions at some point or other....or consistently.

Sure. It's utter bollocks.

...and anyone who wants to dispute THAT conclusion should first have a look at all those quotes I introduced earlier.

So why do you believe in souls.

 

[JayUtah]

I most certainly did address that rationale.

Then you should easily be able to link to the post that contains my rationale and to the post where you address the points in my rationale. But you can't do that, can you?

...because I know what I'm talking about, and you don't.

And since this is the basis of your argument, please continue reading.

My qualifications are not even irrelevant. On these threads any argument should stand on its own merits.

If your argument is largely predicated on the premise that you understand a specialized topic and your critics don't, and can thus speak authoritatively about it, the merit of that argument is the basis of your specialized knowledge. Since your authority is clearly presumptive, your argument has no rational basis. You're just blustering your way through a whole lot of foisted assertions from a lay perspective and belligerently trying to shout down any who don't accept them.

...so either address the arguments I make or don't bother responding. This has become a waste of my time.

I have addressed your arguments, just not in the way you desired. You stated the basis of your claim. I challenged that basis. You could have avoided a lot of wasted time by simply admitting what we all already knew: you have no qualifications in cognitive science. The delay arose from your recognition of your argument's need for it and your unwillingness to admit your lack. The claim that suitable expertise is not necessary didn't arise until after it was clear you'd have to state your expertise.

I have clearly identified numerous examples of either intentional or unintentional dishonesty and contradictions on both your part...

It's amusing that you think such activities support your affirmative claims.

 

[abaddon]

I was going to compose a cogent reply. Then I lost the will to live.

 

[theprestige]

I was going to compose a cogent reply. Then I lost the will to live.

Ah! The immortal's curse!

 

[JayUtah]

...now THIS is a straw-man. We are NOT discussing the authenticity of NDE's here. We ARE discussing anecdotal evidence.

We are presently discussing your claim that there exist some 3 million studies in which NDEs are used as anecdotal evidence to confirm or disconfirm scientific hypotheses. You made a fairly big deal about the significance of such a large amount of what you take to be sympathetic evidence. Ostensibly that number arises merely from a Google search of scholarly literature that mentions certain words. You are the one representing that some number of those citations fit criteria of relevance and usage that support your point. But I fail to see how such usage would be distinguished by such a search.

I understand your desire under the circumstances to change the subject, but I think we've found a recurring problem in your arguments: you make allegations of fact that you simply cannot back up. Then you defend that untenable position by being nasty to people and trying to change the subject.

How many of the 3 million or so citations you refer to have you actually read?

The issue here is the relevance...scientific or otherwise...of anecdotal evidence.

The issue in this thread is whether life after death can be proven mathematically. The most recent distraction from Jabba's ongoing inability to do that is the notion that NDEs are scientifically valid evidence of life after death. I'm not obliged to follow your hijack in order to discuss your pet theories.

 

[Hokulele]

Annnnoid, go ahead and link to one scientific study from that list of yours that shows anecdotes about NDEs being used to support or dismiss a scientific hypothesis. That would certainly be more useful than a linkspooge of no apparent relevance.

 

[Loss Leader]

The words ARE the 'proof'. But for someone who does not believe his wife when she says she's just eaten a piece of cheese...I'm guessing nothing will be sufficient.

Of course I would believe my wife. That doesn't mean her statement could stand up as scientific evidence of the truth of the matter asserted.

It just means that, as a social animal, I am willing to take some logical shortcuts to get along with others.

But this had been said now a dozen times and yet you keep saying it hasn't been explained. So the qiestion is whether I should believe your statements. I don't. I think you're just playing silly buggers.

 

[annnnoid]

Then you should easily be able to link to the post that contains my rationale and to the post where you address the points in my rationale. But you can't do that, can you?

If it is possible to link to a post in AAH then I can easily do so. I do not know what the mod position is on this issue so not going to happen.

And since this is the basis of your argument, please continue reading.

I have in the past argued against the fallacy of the argument from authority…and I just finished doing just that. Look up the word ‘facetious.’

If your argument is largely predicated on the premise that you understand a specialized topic and your critics don't, and can thus speak authoritatively about it, the merit of that argument is the basis of your specialized knowledge. Since your authority is clearly presumptive, your argument has no rational basis. You're just blustering your way through a whole lot of foisted assertions from a lay perspective and belligerently trying to shout down any who don't accept them.

That’s all very nice. Look up the word ‘facetious.’

I have addressed your arguments, just not in the way you desired. You stated the basis of your claim. I challenged that basis. You could have avoided a lot of wasted time by simply admitting what we all already knew: you have no qualifications in cognitive science. The delay arose from your recognition of your argument's need for it and your unwillingness to admit your lack. The claim that suitable expertise is not necessary didn't arise until after it was clear you'd have to state your expertise.

Please explain what expertise is required to conclude that anecdotal evidence is fundamental to the study of cognitive science. I’d really like to know.

…or are you actually going to claim that anecdotal evidence is NOT fundamental to the study of cognitive science? I would really like to see someone make that claim.

It's amusing that you think such activities support your affirmative claims.

What is amusing is how deliberately you are avoiding your own contradictions. They’re all right there in black and white. Let me know when you want to deal with them.

We are presently discussing your claim that there exist some 3 million studies in which NDEs are used as anecdotal evidence to confirm or disconfirm scientific hypotheses. You made a fairly big deal about the significance of such a large amount of what you take to be sympathetic evidence. Ostensibly that number arises merely from a Google search of scholarly literature that mentions certain words. You are the one representing that some number of those citations fit criteria of relevance and usage that support your point. But I fail to see how such usage would be distinguished by such a search.

…see below.

I understand your desire under the circumstances to change the subject, but I think we've found a recurring problem in your arguments: you make allegations of fact that you simply cannot back up.

I defy you to produce evidence to support this claim.

For one I have claimed that you (and others) have been intentionally or unintentionally dishonest and contradictory. The evidence is all there in black and white.

Then you defend that untenable position by being nasty to people and trying to change the subject.

What is the subject that has been changed?

How many of the 3 million or so citations you refer to have you actually read?

…so far, one. It unconditionally and unequivocally confirms my claim. I have not the slightest doubt that I could easily find dozens more within a very short space of time that would do the same. But I only need to find one…and I’ve already done that.

The issue in this thread is whether life after death can be proven mathematically. The most recent distraction from Jabba's ongoing inability to do that is the notion that NDEs are scientifically valid evidence of life after death. I'm not obliged to follow your hijack in order to discuss your pet theories.

Jabba was clearly struggling to establish the basis of his claim…which was that NDE anecdotal evidence can be used to support / dismiss scientific hypothesis (the hypothesis being that life after death can be proven mathematically).

You are entirely free to pretend this was not the issue. The quotes I have produced tell a different story. Most, if not all, of you challenged Jabba’s general claim that NDE anecdotal evidence could be used to support / dismiss scientific hypothesis.

It has been CLEARLY established that you are ALL wrong (on both this thread and the thread in the science section ).

…but, in order to determine who here still insists on challenging the conclusions of the relevant science thread, you can review the following:

Either agree with the following three premises or do not agree with the following three premises:

Anecdotal evidence has fundamental normative relevance.

Anecdotal evidence can fundamentally support / dismiss scientific hypothesis.

NDE anecdotal evidence has been used to support / dismiss scientific hypothesis.

THOSE are the issues upon which any discussion of the relevance of the content of NDE anecdotal evidence MUST be predicated. THOSE are the issues all of you have been disputing over countless pages (is it really necessary to point to those quotes or are you going to claim you and the others did not actually make those statements????).

The first premise is trivially easy to establish (except for those who categorically refuse to believe their own wife when she claims to have done something as trivial as eaten a piece of cheese). If you disagree with it you are flatly contradicting any premise you may have for any variety of communication what-so-ever (including, but not confined to, every post you have ever made on any of these threads […see the question that Hokulele consistently refuses to answer for clarification if you’re still determined to challenge this conclusion]).

The second premise has been conclusively demonstrated to be valid in the relevant science thread (despite the fact that you and many others here have blatantly disputed this position… or not…depending, it seems, on how you feel on any particular day)(I notice you have yet to respond to a single one of your blatant contradictions….impressive!).

The third premise is trivially easy to establish. It took me no more than thirty seconds of reading into the first reference on the first page of the relevant google scholar search (near death experience) to discover CLEAR and INDISPUTABLE references to what only a complete idiot could interpret as anything but NDE anecdotal evidence! I have absolutely no doubt that were I to waste my time reviewing any other paper dealing with this issue, they would also explicitly and clearly reference NDE anecdotal evidence.

See below for further elaboration.

Annnnoid, go ahead and link to one scientific study from that list of yours that shows anecdotes about NDEs being used to support or dismiss a scientific hypothesis. That would certainly be more useful than a linkspooge of no apparent relevance.

Study #1. Page #1. Paragraph #1. The study speaks about how the effects of various chemicals (ketamine etc.) produce experiences (described…you guessed it…anecdotally) that are similar to what has been described by those who experience naturally occurring NDE’s.

ALL of those descriptions (whether natural or induced…whether implicitly or explicitly referenced) can come ONLY one way.

…ANECDOTALLY! (please do waste your time producing references to the wondrous capabilities of scanning technology…but before you do…ask Nonpareil how familiar I am with that area)!

How else could these researchers know what an NDE experience is like (so they can compare it to the reactions of their various chemicals) if someone hadn’t described it….ANECDOTALLY (or are you aware of some magical new scanning technology that has the capacity to explicitly represent human subjective experience with anything beyond rudimentary fidelity).

The hypothesis of the study is the similarities between the experience of naturally occurring NDE’s and the experience of various chemicals. Thus is confirmed the claim that NDE anecdotal evidence CAN be used to support / dismiss a scientific study!

...a further implication being...that legitimate researchers would not be referencing NDE anecdotal evidence if they thought it did not have some evidentiary legitimacy (another claim you all constantly challenged)

DO YOU REQUIRE MORE OR ARE YOU FINALLY GOING TO ADMIT THAT YOU ARE WRONG!!!!!

Once again…here’s the damn question (I’ve forgotten how many times you’ve avoided it now…9,10….11). Anyone would be forgiven for concluding that you’re somehow terrified of what the answer might say. I guess there’s only one way to find out isn’t there. Run away some more of course!

Are...or are not...the words you just wrote in your post evidence of what you were thinking / feeling / experiencing when you wrote them???

Of course I would believe my wife. That doesn't mean her statement could stand up as scientific evidence of the truth of the matter asserted.

It just means that, as a social animal, I am willing to take some logical shortcuts to get along with others.

But this had been said now a dozen times and yet you keep saying it hasn't been explained. So the qiestion is whether I should believe your statements. I don't. I think you're just playing silly buggers.

I can unconditionally guarantee…that if I filled a stadium with cognitive scientists, psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists, linguists, etc. etc….the biggest stadium in the world…and your wife walked into that stadium and claimed to have just eaten a piece of cheese….every single one of them would be satisfied that this was sufficient evidence / proof (yes…that is the word that they would also be comfortable using) that she had just eaten a piece of cheese.

…AND…if you demanded that they all produce a scientific justification (as well as a normative justification) for that conclusion…every single one of them could do just that.

WHEN you acquire the ability to comprehend why this is a FACT, you will discover why you are wrong.

Your first mistake is thinking that science has anything what-so-ever to do with truth. Go and read the relevant science thread to learn more.

 

[JayUtah]

I do not know what the mod position is on this issue so not going to happen.

Then your bluff is called. Blaming the moderators doesn't help you. I submit that you have not addressed my rationale for why expertise is necessary to your claim. You may refute that at any time by supplying the links to the relevant posts.

I have in the past argued against the fallacy of the argument from authority…and I just finished doing just that. Look up the word ‘facetious.’

"I know what I'm talking about and you don't" is exactly an argument from authority. What you may or may not have done in the past doesn't change the fact that you are here and now making an argument from authority. I have challenged the basis of that insinuated authority and I believe I can conclude you have none.

Please explain what expertise is required to conclude that anecdotal evidence is fundamental to the study of cognitive science. I’d really like to know.

Expertise in cognitive science.

What is amusing is how deliberately you are avoiding your own contradictions.

You are frantically trying to shift focus away from your bald assertions that have been made without rational basis.

I defy you to produce evidence to support this claim.

Most of today's discussion that precedes this post will do nicely. You claim you have refuted my rationale for the relevance of expertise in your argument. Instead you made excuses for not being able to substantiate my rationale or your alleged refutation. You insist that you "know what [you're] talking about," but you provide no explanation for the origin of such superior knowledge. You claim that 3 million search results support your claim, but you admit to having seen only one of them.

I'll leave it to our resident lawyer to adjudge whether I have sufficiently cross-examined your claims to determine that they are baseless.

What is the subject that has been changed?

The subject of your claim that 3 million scientific papers support your claim. I quoted your claim and challenged you on it. You tried to ignore that and focus on a more general question.

…so far, one. It unconditionally and unequivocally confirms my claim.

Link, please. We'll let the readers determine for themselves the degree to which it confirms your claims.

I have not the slightest doubt that I could easily find dozens more within a very short space of time that would do the same. But I only need to find one…and I’ve already done that.

What makes you think you only need to mention one anonymous data point out of an alleged 3 million in order to substantiate your claim that 3 million data points support your claim?

You are entirely free to pretend this was not the issue.

And you're entirely free to read this thread and its three predecessors to confirm what Jabba's claim is.

It has been CLEARLY established...

If you say so.

 

[annnnoid]

(snip)

Either agree with the following three premises or do not agree with the following three premises:


Anecdotal evidence has fundamental normative relevance / legitimacy.

Anecdotal evidence can fundamentally support / dismiss scientific hypothesis.

NDE anecdotal evidence has been used to support / dismiss scientific hypothesis.


…and answer the following question:

Are...or are not...the words you just wrote in your post evidence of what you were thinking / feeling / experiencing when you wrote them???


Your post is utter garbage. If you have no interest in dealing with the above issues (which explicitly relate to Jabba’s question about generating a mathematical scientific hypothesis to support life after death [cause his hypothesis fundamentally references not just anecdotal evidence, but NDE anecdotal evidence])…then I have no interest in any further discussion.

 

[JayUtah]

Either agree...

No, I don't think I'll acquiesce to your ongoing bluster and question-begging. Distractive browbeating may have worked at some point for you in the past, but I'm not impressed by it. However, you may address any of the points I actually raised in my post before you once again frantically tried to change the subject.

Your post is utter garbage.

If you say so. I'm happy letting readers decide that for themselves.

If you have no interest in dealing with the above issues (which explicitly relate to Jabba’s question...)

I'll address Jabba's issues with Jabba. I'm attempting to address your issues with you. You have made a number of affirmative claims irrespective of where they may fit into a larger argument. I'm challenging those claims. If you cannot or will not support them then it doesn't matter whether they fit somewhere else because they're unsupported.

I have no interest in any further discussion.

Suit yourself. You made claims. I challenged those claims. You refuse to address the challenges and are grasping for excuses why that shouldn't be your fault. By all means keep up the baseless swagger. I'm sure someone will fall for it. Not me, though.