Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[Hokulele]

Someone still doesn't understand the difference between anecdotes and systematically gathered patient interviews. What a surprise...

 

[Filippo Lippi]

…then I have no interest in any further discussion.

Nailing the flounce is always the hardest part.

Also, what happened to the proof of immortality? Seems to be buried under a fresh avalanche of anecdotes are evidence.

 

[Mojo]

...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.

This is not that thread. This is the thread that has a mod box saying:

Since the discussion of the value of anecdotes in supporting scientific hypotheses now has its very own thread, here, please be so kind to continue those discussions there, not here.

Thanks gobs.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jsfisher

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

No, that's the issue in the other thread. The issue here is Jabba's alleged proof of immortality, which currently involves him trying use reports of NDEs to prove that the current scientific model of consciousness includes an infinite number of immaterial souls.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Where has any hypothesis been introduced????

The hypothesis is that I love my wife.

You have just said you love your wife.

And that, according to you, is the evidence for it.

Is there any conceivable reason between here and eternity why I should come to some other conclusion but that the words mean what the words mean??????

You tell me.

So, is the hypothesis that I love my wife confirmed or not?

 

[theprestige]

Also, what happened to the proof of immortality? Seems to be buried under a fresh avalanche of anecdotes are evidence.

Jabba tried to introduce anecdotes as proof of immortality. This was disputed and now we're all riding the hobby horse.

 

[Mojo]

Also, what happened to the proof of immortality?

It was last sighted here, I think. Since we are not supposed to discuss it in that thread I'll reply to it here.

annnnoid,
- I'm not sure how I'm supposed to connect the issue in the other thread to the issue in this one...
- I'll try right here. I claim that the well-educated hypothesis that we each have only one finite life (at most) is not necessarily correct -- that there is a reasonable possibility (1%?) that it's wrong. Then, I claim that NDE reports constitute some evidence that it's wrong. I also claim that studies in parapsychology, in general, constitute some evidence that said hypothesis (OOFLam) is wrong.

- Then, I claim that if we accept that there is some reasonable possibility that OOFLam is wrong, Bayesian statistics virtually proves that it's wrong.
- I think that many of the NDE studies are pretty impressive (as are some of the parapsychology studies in general) and that between those two bodies of 'knowledge,' there has to be a 1% possibility (at least) that OOFLam is wrong.
- IOW, I don't need to attribute a whole lot of reliability to the NDE studies.

- If you think that there is a reasonable possibility that OOFLam is wrong, I'd love to discuss my other Bayesian entries in the other thread with you -- and, with any of the others that accept that anecdotes can constitute evidence.

Note that Jabba is misrepresenting his own argument. His most recent introduction of NDEs was not an attempt to cast a small amount of doubt on "OOFLam", it was an attempt to justify his including a factor of seven billion over infinity in his assessment of the likelihood of his existence under "OOFLam". As has been pointed out to him several times, while this factor could conceivably apply to the likelihood of Jabba's existence under his preferred hypothesis (i.e. The hypothesis that he has an immaterial soul) it has no place in an expression of the likelihood of his existence under a hypothesis in which his consciousness is the result of his brain processes. To include this factor in the likelihood of his existence under "OOFLam" he needs to do more than cast some doubt: he must prove that the hypothesis he is attacking includes an infinite number of immaterial souls.

The reset won't work, Jabba. Even if you post it in a different thread people will still remember what has been posted in this one.

 

[annnnoid]

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.

…riiiiiiight. The subject of the thread is blindingly important…until you actually have to address it! Then suddenly just about anything else matters more! I’ll keep that in mind.

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

What have ‘other readers’ got to do with anything??? Is an audience necessary!

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.

Jabba’s issue, as all of you constantly pointed out (and all those quotes quite explicitly confirm) is whether of not NDE evidence can be used to support a scientific hypothesis (HIS scientific hypothesis). Just about ALL of you disagreed (for no other reason than that you simply don’t like HIS scientific hypothesis…in the other thread your position has been conclusively demonstrated to be unqualified garbage).

The fact that you are ALL wrong…and it is blindingly easy to establish this ( and I have already done so…and the other thread has done so…and I will waste my time continuing to do so later )…and that none of you seem to be able to admit this indisputable FACT…says everything anyone needs to know about your arguments.

The fact that you continue to insist that these vague and irrelevant straw-men occupy some kind of center-stage (my credentials….how do my credentials determine whether or not NDE anecdotal evidence has been used to support a scientific hypothesis???)…and that you continue to avoid every relevant argument presented to you (ALL of which explicitly refer to the legitimacy and relevance of anecdotal evidence…which is the specific issue that Jabba’s argument has struggled with) again says all anyone needs to know about your arguments.

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.

The irrelevance of your arguments has now exceeded any interest I have in responding to them. Do let me know when you’ve figured out how my credentials determine the legitimacy of the conclusion that NDE anecdotal evidence CAN be and HAS been used to support scientific hypothesis.

The relevant thread in the science forums has already confirmed this FACT (a fact that you yourself …as those quotes show in black and white…have flatly disagreed with). Later today I will be posting further links conclusively establishing that NDE anecdotal evidence has been used by legitimate researchers to generate legitimate hypothesis.

…your argument will be established to be wrong. Evidence will be included. Links will be included. Have fun arguing your way out of those.

Someone still doesn't understand the difference between anecdotes and systematically gathered patient interviews. What a surprise...

….running away from the simplest of questions. Over and over and over and over and over and over.

…what a surprise.

I think that says all anyone needs to know about who can, or cannot, support their argument. You all spend countless pages beating Jabba to a pulp…and then when it is conclusively established that you’re all wrong… everyone runs and hides.

Sooooooooo impressive!

This is not that thread. This is the thread that has a mod box saying:

No, that's the issue in the other thread. The issue here is Jabba's alleged proof of immortality, which currently involves him trying use reports of NDEs to prove that the current scientific model of consciousness includes an infinite number of immaterial souls.

…and Jabba’s proof of immortality was based on the admissibility of NDE anecdotal evidence. I have introduced quotes from just about all of you that CLEARLY establishes that you have all insisted that NDE anecdotal evidence cannot be used to support / dismiss a scientific hypothesis. This position has been established to be garbage in the relevant science thread. Later today I will be producing links and quotes from numerous legitimate scientific studies that explicitly reference NDE anecdotal evidence to generate their hypothesis.

The science thread already says you’re all wrong. Later today this thread will establish the same conclusion. I have no doubt you will all find a hole in the dirt deep and dark enough to protect you from the facts.

…it’s called denial! Typically it’s what the theists do. Skeptics too apparently.

The hypothesis is that I love my wife.

And that, according to you, is the evidence for it.

You tell me.

So, is the hypothesis that I love my wife confirmed or not?

It doesn’t ‘confirm’ anything other than that you have made this statement and that I now believe you love your wife. That’s it. There is no global register where it is now written in blood and stone….” It has been conclusively established across all of time and space that Squeegee Beckenheim does love his wife.” You’re angling for a whale in a pool of minnows. Angle all you want, you’re never going to catch anything more than a minnow.

 

[Hokulele]

Your "gotcha" question had nothing to do with the topic, and I had already addressed how not every piece of communication is an anecdote. Since you repeatedly fail to provide a consistent, coherent definition of anecdote, there is no point is playing catch with a halibut.


Edit: So then, since you now state that avoiding a question = losing, how about linking a study where anecdotal evidence is clearly used to support a hypothesis regarding non-physical origins for NDEs?

 

[JayUtah]

Note that Jabba is misrepresenting his own argument.

Not as much as it seems, I think. Most recently Jabba wanted Loss Leader to accept NDEs as a justification for P(~H), the prior probability of life after, or maybe "OOFLAM", to be 1 percent. I surmise that somewhere along the line Jabba recognized the need to nail down either P(X) or P(E|X) because you can't just pull both out of thin air. So he figures if he can cajole Loss Leader into accepting NDEs as a rationale, his 1-percent prior won't just have been pulled out of his bunghole. Then he can formulate P(E|X) however he wants in order to satisfy Bayes constraints.

And then yes, the P(E|H) being so very, very tiny is based on the unquantified version of the premise that H must necessarily include a notion of a soul, otherwise how else would you get only Jabba. You're right: merely casting doubt on H by handwaving at NDEs doesn't establish that H must necessarily involve souls and thus necessarily be unlikely to make a Jabba. But I honestly think Jabba doesn't comprehend that. I don't think he's capable of conceiving even hypothetically that there may not be an immortal soul.

The reset won't work, Jabba. Even if you post it in a different thread people will still remember what has been posted in this one.

Yes, but no. As you can see, that thread has degenerated into people arguing apples and oranges precisely because people aren't allowed to point out Jabba's equivocations that have roots in this thread. This is exactly what he tried to do with respect to his Shroud thread. He started a new thread outside the religion forum so that he could separate the abstract notion of "circumstantial evidence" from the way he was abusing it in support of his religion. Keep in mind he thinks everyone here is being unfair to him, so he wants to equivocate up a situation in which the normal understanding of something is conflated with his misunderstanding of it. He plays off the relevance rules of the forum to achieve that.

 

[JayUtah]

The irrelevance of your arguments has now exceeded any interest I have in responding to them.

You were invited to address my argument for relevance. You refused. Hence your protracted flounce. You made specific claims. I challenged those claims. You are patently unable or unwilling to address those challenges, and you are scrambling to present ways in which you insist that shouldn't matter.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It doesn’t ‘confirm’ anything other than that you have made this statement and that I now believe you love your wife.

Good. Well done. So, it's evidence that I made that statement. This is what everybody else is saying. Point of agreement there.

However, the fact that you now believe that I love my wife, when I am not in fact married, is a handy illustration of how such a statement doesn't actually support the hypothesis that I love my wife.

 

[Belz...]

…riiiiiiight.

Ah, there's that incredulity again.

 

[Belz...]

Could somebody ask Annnnoid if claiming to be in direct communication with Zeus should be believed in the same way as "I love my wife"?

 

[JayUtah]

how do my credentials determine whether or not NDE anecdotal evidence has been used to support a scientific hypothesis?

Let's not shift the goalposts. You claimed anecdotes were "commonly" used in cognitive science. As I said before, what is common practice in a field is generally explicable only by someone well enough versed in the field. That's not you. You further claimed literally millions of citations in favor of your position and made a big point out of that apparent degree of support. So the quantitative aspect of your claim, which you're now trying to sneak away from, is not borne out by cherry-picking a few references. There is no hasty make-up work that can compensate for your having already overstated your case.

Further, expertise in the field bears on your ability to interpret data-gathering methods in that field as empirically congruent with the anecdotes Jabba proposes to employ. There is a great deal of equivocation in this thread and elsewhere about what anecdotes are. Try as you might to blur important distinctions, they matter. Expertise in the field bears on your ability to interpret how subject reports contribute to overall findings in the field, the operative understanding of "support" in this context.

Later today this thread will establish the same conclusion.

Why not now? Why not three or four days ago? See, the problem is that you need time to go cherry-pick references that you haven't yet read. You already attempted to characterize them while admitting you hadn't read any of them. So now you have a predetermined conclusion that you need to prop up. That doesn't put you in a position of favorable credibility. Again your problem is that you keep overstating your case.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Could somebody ask Annnnoid if claiming to be in direct communication with Zeus should be believed in the same way as "I love my wife"?

I have it on good authority that Zeus loves your wife.

 

[annnnoid]

Your "gotcha" question had nothing to do with the topic, and I had already addressed how not every piece of communication is an anecdote. Since you repeatedly fail to provide a consistent, coherent definition of anecdote, there is no point is playing catch with a halibut.

...no of course not. The question explicitly references the relevance of anecdotal evidence...this part of the thread is explicitly referencing the relevance of anecdotal evidence, your very own quotes explicitly PROVE that you dispute the relevance of anecdotal evidence....

...yet...according to you...a question that explicitly references the relevance of anecdotal evidence is somehow not relevant.

Like I said...your logic must hail from another universe!

...and if, as you claim, this horrific question is sooooooooo trivial, why don't you simply answer it???????

Edit: So then, since you now state that avoiding a question = losing, how about linking a study where anecdotal evidence is clearly used to support a hypothesis regarding non-physical origins for NDEs?

It is first necessary to establish that NDE anecdotal evidence CAN have evidentiary legitimacy. Jabba's argument hinges on this claim. A claim which you and just about everyone else here has categorically dismissed.

...look at the links. It is right there in black and white. You and the others have argued that NDE anecdotal evidence CANNOT be used to support / dismiss a scientific hypothesis. Jabba cannot proceed with his scientific hypothesis unless this matter is resolved.

The other thread has already conclusively established that you are all wrong. Later today I will produce evidence and links that will establish in this thread that you are all wrong.

...keep pretending. It just makes my job easier.

 

[Belz...]

I have it on good authority that Zeus loves your wife.

Yeah, Zeus is that kind of guy. Hopefully that'll give us an adopted demigod.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Yeah, Zeus is that kind of guy. Hopefully that'll give us an adopted demigod.

Have you PRICED colleges, these days?

 

[annnnoid]

Good. Well done. So, it's evidence that I made that statement. This is what everybody else is saying. Point of agreement there.

However, the fact that you now believe that I love my wife, when I am not in fact married, is a handy illustration of how such a statement doesn't actually support the hypothesis that I love my wife.

...I guess you didn't notice the spot where I suggested that there are no whales to catch.

First of all, normatively speaking people do not proceed under the assumption of fraudulence. If that is how you live your life then you can not trust a single word anyone says to you ever....including a single word you read on any of these threads.

...and secondly...I have now come to the conclusion that you are not married, you were playing games, and that I no longer wish to discuss anything with you because you insist on producing garbage.

Bye.

 

[Slowvehicle]

...I guess you didn't notice the spot where I suggested that there are no whales to catch.

First of all, normatively speaking people do not proceed under the assumption of fraudulence. If that is how you live your life then you can not trust a single word anyone says to you ever....including a single word you read on any of these threads.

...and secondly...I have now come to the conclusion that you are not married, you were playing games, and that I no longer wish to discuss anything with you because you insist on producing garbage.

Bye.

"The flounce, she is so hard to stick..."