• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Proof of Immortality, the IV league

Status
Not open for further replies.
- My second claim:
- Some such accounts given by NDE subjects do, in fact, increase the probability of immateriality.
 
Jabba said:
LL,
- Thanks for giving me a shot, but I've given it my best, and I haven't convinced you of anything. I think I had best give up...
- However, since six others do seem to agree with my first claim (about anecdotes being evidence), maybe one of the six will be willing to give me a similar shot re my other claims...
Click to expand...

Translation: I'm only going to pay attention to people I think already agree with me. There it is, folks -- "effective debate."

You aren't giving up. You're simply attempting to equivocate others' statements to seem like they agree, all that as an excuse to skip over a part of the debate you admit you can't prevail on -- the question of whether you actually have evidence. It's the Shroud argument all over again, where you don't feel the need to "debate" anyone who doesn't already accept your claim.
 
Jabba said:
Some such accounts given by NDE subjects do, in fact, increase the probability of immateriality.
Click to expand...

1. You're here to prove immortality. You don't get to widen the goalposts just because you failed the first time and need a do-over.

2. No matter what you think happened as a result of your attempt to change venue, your NDE anecdotes do not prove life after death as a scientific hypothesis.
 
Jabba said:
LL,
- Thanks for giving me a shot, but I've given it my best, and I haven't convinced you of anything. I think I had best give up...
- However, since six others do seem to agree with my first claim (about anecdotes being evidence), maybe one of the six will be willing to give me a similar shot re my other claims...
Click to expand...
Jabba said:
Annnnoid, Fudbucker, sphenisc, jt512, caveman 1917, Nick Terry, and Dani,
- (Oops -- 7 rather than 6.)
- Would any of you be willing to tackle my other claims?
Click to expand...


So the problem is the interloculor? With the right person, all of your errors will disappear? How ridiculous an end. I thought you had chosen me because my calm, steady focus helped you face your argument's problems. Instead, your calm, steady problems are in search of someone with wild and untamed focus.

Good luck with your search for the perfect echo chamber. I have a feeling none of the people you named will be interested in the job.
 
JayUtah said:
That's sort of where we were with this until the tangent took on a life of his own. All these equivocations were once motivated by providing a rationale either for P(H) or for P(E|H). Dividing by infinity (or sometimes just billions) was meant to support the case that P(E|H) must be very small. In like manner, begging a measly amount of credulity that NDEs could be evidence of immortality was meant to support the case that P(~H) could be 1%. Jabba has flatly stated that all he needs is someone to stipulate to that 1% and his Bayesian inference takes care of the rest by a likelihood ratio fancifully based on assumptions of infinity. So now he's trying every dishonest stunt in the book to trick his critics into agreeing to an actual probability of 1% that there exists an immortal soul.
Click to expand...


I thought he was also trying to use the NDEs stories to justify including his factor of 7 billion over infinity in the expression of the likelihood of his existence under the current scientific model, after it was pointed out that this factor doesn't apply to an hypothesis in which consciousness is the result of brain processes (although it could, of course, apply under his preferred hypothesis in which immaterial souls exist). That would, of course, give Jabba a burden of proof to overcome. He only returned to trying to use it to justify the 1% uncertainty when it became obvious, even to him, that stories about NDEs weren't going to prove the existence of immaterial souls.

Jabba's claim that even a small likelihood that H is incorrect means that it must be incorrect relies on having his factor of seven billion over infinity in his expression of the likelihood of his existence under H. But it patently doesn't belong there. The 1% uncertainty doesn't matter, as far as Jabba's argument is concerned, because the hypothesis he's arguing against doesn't include immaterial souls.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- I suppose that it doesn't [I][I][I][I][I][I][I][I][I][I][I]rule out[/I][/I][/I][/I][/I][/I][/I][/I][/I][/I][/I] a lucky guess, but doesn't it reduce the likelihood of a lucky guess?
- What if the subject was correct in claiming that the penny was minted in 1985?
Click to expand...

Squeegee Beckenheim said:
What if a nurse threw the penny up on top of the cabinet after hearing the story but before anybody looked for the penny?

BTW, having quoted your post, I feel the need to tell you that if you put something in 11 italics boxes it doesn't become any more italicised than if you'd just put it in the one.
Click to expand...


Believe it or not, Jabba has been told that before.
 
Jabba said:
- Try this. http://biocentrismnews.com/biocentrism-what-happens-when-you-die/?gclid=COnU44b2zdACFZU1aQodEPoFfw
Click to expand...

I'm going with Lindley, who says
at best, he proposes some sort of vague, inarticulate metaphor about the nature of reality. And I certainly don't see how thinking his way would lead you into any new sort of scientific or philosophical insight. That's all very nice, I would say to Lanza, but now what?
Click to expand...
Yup. Vague and inarticulate. Says nothing about anything. Functionally useless.

Link for anyone interested.
 
Jabba, anyone can write some stories and publish them in a book labeled non-fiction, or put them on a website. There's no way to verify if they're true.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- Try this. http://biocentrismnews.com/biocentrism-what-happens-when-you-die/?gclid=COnU44b2zdACFZU1aQodEPoFfw
Click to expand...

We already did, in the NDE thread. You aren't the first to try to foist this particular pseudoscientific nonsense, and you can probably guess how well it fared. There is nothing in that article that even approaches actual science or provides any testable evidence for life after death. It's the standard mystic's vague, handwaving appeal to theoretical physics.
 
Jabba said:
- My second claim:
- Some such accounts given by NDE subjects do, in fact, increase the probability of immateriality.
Click to expand...

Congrats, you've managed to convince yourself that some people on a "skeptics site" (ooooooooooo!) agreed with your first claim. You're still not immortal. None of us are. Sorry that hurts, time to grow up.
 
JayUtah said:
We already did, in the NDE thread. You aren't the first to try to foist this particular pseudoscientific nonsense, and you can probably guess how well it fared. There is nothing in that article that even approaches actual science or provides any testable evidence for life after death. It's the standard mystic's vague, handwaving appeal to theoretical physics.
Click to expand...

here's a better article:
https://debunkingdenialism.com/2014...ormal-debunking-part-i-bayesian-self-defence/

quote:
"Second, he tries to appeal to anecdotal evidence and personal experience. Just because something lacks scientific evidence, he argues, does not mean that it has not been “proven” to people via first-hand experience. However, if anecdotal evidence and personal experience was sufficient to settle issues regarding the paranormal (or indeed any larger question about the nature of reality) then there would be no need for science. In reality, anecdotes and personal experience does not qualify as scientific evidence. This is because it is subjected to distortions, biases and other processes that makes them unreliable. These can be overcome by using controlled scientific studies critically evaluated and discussed in the larger scientific community. His analogy to “sitting in a car is evidence for the existence of cars” does not work because the car can be independently examined and experiments can be repeated. This is typically not the case for anecdotes or personal experiences."


special attention perhaps to the paragraph titled "Misunderstood principle #5: Anecdotal evidence"

yes, I know... all said before, repeatedly.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom