Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[Loss Leader]

This is the silliest derail in the history of silly derails.

The word "anecdote" is being stretched nearly to the breaking point.

The word "evidence" has lost all meaning.

The difference between social niceties and scientific inquiry has been nuked from space.

And nowhere in any of it do we find any support whatsoever for the concept that NDE's show immateriality. Jabba has yet to move the needle off zero on that. And that is the only thing that matters to this thread.

 

[JayUtah]

The difference between social niceties and scientific inquiry has been nuked from space.

It's the only way to be sure.

 

[Garrette]

--snip--
The anecdotal information (aka: evidence) precipitates the physiological study and often informs what specific neural issues are explored…and the anecdotal information (aka: evidence) precipitates the cognitive study and, to a much greater degree, informs what cognitive issues are involved.

NDE anecdotal evidence supports / dismisses scientific hypothesis.

This part is worth revisiting, and I think there are two aspects to address, so I will break this into two parts.

===

In addition to my other comments in this thread, I have recently said in the Anecdotes-as-Evidence thread that mere precipitation of a study does not indicate evidential value of the precipitate. One need look no further than this forum to find examples of investigations prompted by anecdotes that are not considered to be evidential. Every time I do another investigation into a new story supposedly supporting psychic abilities or mediumship I do it with what I hope is an open mind and what I know is an expectation that the story is bunkum. The skeptics who tag along on ghost hunts are disconfirming of your claim, too.

===

Moving it into Bayes either disregards the actual studies which either confirmed or disconfirmed the anecdotes and is therefore dishonest or -- if there is no study -- merely relies on belief. You are demonstrating what others have said in various form, i.e., that Jabba is merely proving his belief in immortality and not the fact of it and should simply admit to that fact.

Additionally, your logic is leading down the road of saying that this is all Bayes is good for: applying numbers to a belief. I am not remotely a Bayes expert, but it seems to me that Bayes is meant for more than simple personal validation.

 

[Nonpareil]

And we're back, ladies and gentlemen, following several days of fever and other instances of my body essentially declaring war upon itself.

To find that nothing has changed, of course. A brief rundown, for the record, though most of this has already been stated by others:

The links clearly demonstrate the claim that NDE anecdotal evidence can be used to support / dismiss scientific hypothesis.

No. They demonstrate that anecdotes can serve as the catalyst for the formation of a hypothesis. At no point are they used as evidence.

Except in cases like Penny Sartori's nonsense, which is just another example of why annnnoid usually attempts to avoid having to cite sources; because they are inevitably on this level of utter garbage.

Even in those studies which confine themselves to physiological issues...the anecdotal evidence is still crucial if for no other reason than that self-report (aka: anecdotal evidence) is essential to recognizing what specific cognitive activity is occurring.

It is honestly quite funny that you still can't differentiate between using direct observation of a subject's behavior as evidence of their beliefs and using an unverified account of an event as evidence that it happened as reported.

Honestly, we've been over it enough times.

They are anecdotal.

You don't understand what "anecdotal" means.

The anecdotal information is used evidentially in some way shape or form in every study.

Flatly wrong.

Just by happening each of those studies has ALREADY confirmed that NDE anecdotal evidence is used to support / dismiss a scientific hypothesis.

No.

…all of the studies begin with the assumption that ‘something of sufficient relevance has occurred to warrant this study.’

Which does not mean "these anecdotes are therefore evidence of what that something actually was".

You are over-rationalizing.

You are failing utterly to dodge the question.

This is the silliest derail in the history of silly derails.

The word "anecdote" is being stretched nearly to the breaking point.

The word "evidence" has lost all meaning.

The difference between social niceties and scientific inquiry has been nuked from space.

And nowhere in any of it do we find any support whatsoever for the concept that NDE's show immateriality. Jabba has yet to move the needle off zero on that. And that is the only thing that matters to this thread.

This is every one of annnnoid's arguments in a nutshell.

He does not like that anecdotes are not evidence, and so attempts to stretch the word far enough to include literally every form of communication in the hopes of a win by technicality. He does not understand what it would take to be evidence, so his attempts are completely misguided from the start.

And, in the end, all you are left with is a nonsensical mish-mash of non-words that utterly fail to establish anything at all.

 

[turingtest]

And we're back, ladies and gentlemen, following several days of fever and other instances of my body essentially declaring war upon itself.

To find that nothing has changed, of course. A brief rundown, for the record, though most of this has already been stated by others:



No. They demonstrate that anecdotes can serve as the catalyst for the formation of a hypothesis. At no point are they used as evidence.

Except in cases like Penny Sartori's nonsense, which is just another example of why annnnoid usually attempts to avoid having to cite sources; because they are inevitably on this level of utter garbage.



It is honestly quite funny that you still can't differentiate between using direct observation of a subject's behavior as evidence of their beliefs and using an unverified account of an event as evidence that it happened as reported.

Honestly, we've been over it enough times.



You don't understand what "anecdotal" means.



Flatly wrong.



No.



Which does not mean "these anecdotes are therefore evidence of what that something actually was".



You are failing utterly to dodge the question.



This is every one of annnnoid's arguments in a nutshell.

He does not like that anecdotes are not evidence, and so attempts to stretch the word far enough to include literally every form of communication in the hopes of a win by technicality. He does not understand what it would take to be evidence, so his attempts are completely misguided from the start.

And, in the end, all you are left with is a nonsensical mish-mash of non-words that utterly fail to establish anything at all.

Annnnoid...adjuticated!

 

[wea]

Annnnoid...adjuticated!

tantamountly ...

 

[Jabba]

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.

Assuming the research was reported correctly (which, in the case of the cardiologist, it appears not to have been), the research wasn't careful at all. They show no perception that couldn't be gained through physical means. They have no objective science on the heart or brain activity of the patients, at least one of which (heart activity) was necessary for appropriate medical care. They have no careful survey that asked the same questions of all participants in the same wording. They have no primary sources, just the reporting about those sources. There is no transparency in the studies - their raw numbers, their survey methods, or anything else...

LL,
- These particular studies were designed to deal with a different objection to the 'truth value' of NDEs -- i.e., Can Specific Descriptions of Resuscitation Procedures Be Explained by Factors Like Prior Knowledge?

O...kay? I can't see how that has anything to do with immateriality or non-physical perception, but okay...

LL,
-The authors are referring to the potential for explanation other than non-physical perception.

If the anecdotes are consistent with both material and immaterial explanations, then they have no evidentiary value whatsoever.

LL,
- In this study, NDE anecdotes were not consistent with being of strictly materialistic explanation -- here, the descriptions given by subjects who claimed NDE's were significantly more detailed, and accurate, than were the descriptions given by the subjects who did not claim NDEs.
- The anecdotes were consistently more consistent with the facts than were the acknowledged guesses based upon prior knowledge. This supports the claim that the anecdotes were not simply guesses -- that something more was going on here.
- This study reduces the likelihood that these anecdotes have a strictly materialistic explanation.

Jabba,

That's not true. At least one of the authors has specifically come out and said that's not what he was testing...

LL,
- Where do you see that?

 

[Hokulele]

As Jay Utah previously cited:

"I have concluded that these [near-death] experiences are not by themselves prima facie evidence of life after death." Michael B. Sabom, MD. JAMA 244(1) (July 1980), p. 29.

 

[Loss Leader]

LL,
- Where do you see that?

With an assist from Hokulele and Jay Utah:

As Jay Utah previously cited:

"I have concluded that these [near-death] experiences are not by themselves prima facie evidence of life after death." Michael B. Sabom, MD. JAMA 244(1) (July 1980), p. 29.

 

[JayUtah]

Where do you see that?

Tsk, tsk, Jabba. Your desire to limit your attention to but a few people is now causing you to be glaringly ignorant of important aspects of the debate. How is that "effective debate" working for you?

As is your chronic problem, you rely too heavily on secondary sources and their brief, misleading summaries. You don't care to actually dig into the meat of the evidence and the sciences surrounding it. Ironically you often invite your critics to do that for you. For the most part they rightly reject doing your homework for you. But when your critics actually do delve more deeply into the material than you, they find things you clearly wish weren't there. You and your summaries simply aren't up to the task of surveying the body of pertinent evidence. You allude to theoretical physics, but you don't know anything about it. You allude to philosophy, but you don't know anything about it. You allude to medical studies you think prove your point, but you don't know anything about them -- even the things that a layman could discover with some diligence.

Now you're in the unenviable position of having quoted the better part of a dozen posts between you and your designated opponent, where he's clearly paying attention to the debate as a whole and you clearly are not -- where he's clearly delved beyond the brief summary and you clearly haven't. It's an unenviable position because anyone reading this thread is likely to see just how withdrawn you are from the actual test of your claims. You want to decry ISF as a bunch of hard-core, entrenched skeptics who lack the flexibility of thought to appreciate your genius. But whether it's by cherry-picking posts from here to elsewhere, or by simply ignoring the parts of the debate you don't like, you're simply trying to invent a debate in your mind that plays out favorably for you.

 

[kmortis]

I hear that this thread has become a repeat of one other. That being the case, this one is now closed and you all are asked to continue discussing the topic over there.

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

 

[Mojo]

I hear that this thread has become a repeat of one other. That being the case, this one is now closed and you all are asked to continue discussing the topic over there.

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

Is it about a bicycle?

 

[jsfisher]

I hear that this thread has become a repeat of one other. That being the case, this one is now closed and you all are asked to continue discussing the topic over there.

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

What my distinguished colleague meant to way was that the other thread is closed and you are all asked to continue discussing the topic over here.

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

 

[Belz...]

Yeah, that's what I thought. Poor kmortis.

 

[Jabba]

As Jay Utah previously cited:

"I have concluded that these [near-death] experiences are not by themselves prima facie evidence of life after death." Michael B. Sabom, MD. JAMA 244(1) (July 1980), p. 29.

Hokulele,
-Thanks -- but, I don't think that denies that they are not evidence, or that they do not support immateriality.
- From https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=prima facie definition.
-Prima facie: based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proved otherwise.
- Sabom wasn't claiming that the implications of the studies were necessarily correct. He was just claiming that there were implications of the studies, and that they implied that the reports given were not just the result of prior knowledge.

 

[jt512]

Why are you telling me this? You're the one who took zinc because your buddies said it would work.

cause you said anecdotal evidence is on par with clinical trials. hard to imagine a statistician saying that.

Yet, imagine it you did.

 

[Nonpareil]

Hokulele,
-Thanks -- but, I don't think that denies that they are not evidence, or that they do not support immateriality.

That is literally exactly what it does*.

*: When correcting for the presumed double negative error, anyway.

 

[Loss Leader]

Hokulele,
-Thanks -- but, I don't think that denies that they are not evidence, or that they do not support immateriality.
- From https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=prima facie definition.
-Prima facie: based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proved otherwise.
- Sabom wasn't claiming that the implications of the studies were necessarily correct. He was just claiming that there were implications of the studies, and that they implied that the reports given were not just the result of prior knowledge.

Jabba -

Whatever you're talking about, it doesn't matter. Neither of these "studies" did anything to rule out low brain activity memory. Neither of these "studies" did anything to limit themselves to information that could only be obtained without physical senses.

They are unfalsifiable in relation to immateriality. Whatever they say, they do not rule out physical perception so that the information could only be obtained immaterially.

In fact, they seem to agree with the AWARE study. People who are conscious enough to have NDE's are more likely to consciously or unconsciously remember sensory input than people who aren't. That doesn't help you. None of this helps you.

There is no falsifiable evidence of immateriality. There is no reason to believe it even might exist. Our confidence in the material model of consciousness still stands at 100%.

Instead of begging for someone to agree with something, try this: Admit that no argument by anyone can change your mind. Admit you believe this as an article of faith. Trust me, you'll feel better just saying it.

 

[JayUtah]

I don't think that denies that they are not evidence...

Equivocation. They are not evidence that supports your hypothesis. Your hypothesis is that there is life after death. The author of the research to which you refer has said he does not conclude that his findings support a hypothesis of life after death. Seriously, Jabba, when the author of a study has specifically repudiated the conclusion you're trying to draw on the basis of it, that needs to mean something to you.

...or that they do not support immateriality.

You're not proving immateriality; you're proving immortality. You are purporting that Dr. Sabom applied sufficient empirical controls to his experiment to rule out all material causes, such that it would be logical on that basis to conclude the eventual cause must be immaterial. There is absolutely nothing in his work to support that suggestion.

Prima facie: based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proved otherwise.

That's the definition for law. Now use the definition that's meant for science, especially medicine.

 

[Jedi]

Yet, imagine it you did.

ok, so please clarify... do you consider anecdotes on par with controlled clinical trials as far as the quality of the evidentiary evidence they provide?