Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[aleCcowaN]

I think it's interesting that so many people report having these experiences. I think it's surprising that, if materialism is true, many people report highly spiritual experiences near death. It's not what I would have predicted.

You'll forgive me for not giving your predicting abilities too much credit.

I would reword it "I think it's interesting that so many people sharing the same biological hardware and same acculturation have reported these experiences in situations of oxygen deprivation, and those experiences being so similar to what healthy people attest after having being injected psychoactive drugs or electric pulses interfering with brain waves. I think it's surprising that, if materialism is true, many people report spiritual experiences from their real experiences near death. People traumatized by their NDEs and rehashing their remembrances of them in a culturally approved and self-assuring manner is not what I would have predicted. Because people have problems remembering where they left the keys when they are healthy but they are amazing witnesses when oxygen is scarce and their blood acidifies."

Wouldn't be that rewording uninformed and simpletonistic? I think not.

 

[Jabba]

The NDE anecdotes that have been collected so far only establish that a non-trivial percentage of people report a set of very similar spiritual (at least to them) experiences near the moment of death. Science has tried to explain these with various hypotheses (oxygen deprivation, ketamine-type chemicals that produce OOB feelings, etc.).

I think it's interesting that so many people report having these experiences. I think it's surprising that, if materialism is true, many people report highly spiritual experiences near death. It's not what I would have predicted. Surprising results have to be explained. But the anecdotes aren't good evidence for survival-after-death. They only establish the fact that people report these experiences.

Awhile back, there was a big NDE study with signs in places people couldn't see. What would have happened in a person had reported an NDE and reported exactly right what the hidden sign said? That would have been a hugely significant piece of anecdotal evidence, and if more than one person had reported what the various signs were, it would have been covered extensively. But nobody was able to tell what was on the signs, so the survival-after-death hypothesis took a bit of a hit when that study didn't produce any good results.

Fudbucker,

- I'll try to tackle your points, one at a time...

- The anecdotes to which I refer as being evidence for immateriality are those in which the patient is said to know of events and/or situations of which he/she should not know through normal means. Sorry about all that fancy wording.
- I'm not claiming any large degree of evidence -- just that between the NDE evidence and the evidence from paranormal studies in general, the prior probability of immateriality has to be at least .001. I do think that the prior probability is actually much more, but that virtually any possibility is enough for my purposes here.

 

[Belz...]

But will you be back?

 

[jond]

Fudbucker,

- I'll try to tackle your points, one at a time...

- The anecdotes to which I refer as being evidence for immateriality are those in which the patient is said to know of events and/or situations of which he/she should not know through normal means. Sorry about all that fancy wording.
- I'm not claiming any large degree of evidence -- just that between the NDE evidence and the evidence from paranormal studies in general, the prior probability of immateriality has to be at least .001. I do think that the prior probability is actually much more, but that virtually any possibility is enough for my purposes here.

Wrong, very wrong. You continue to ignore the very obvious fact that the scientific model is considerably more likely than your model which includes an immaterial soul. And since you've given up trying to prove "immortality" and now claim to be trying to show the existence of "immaterial", you ABSOLUTELY need more than "virtually any possibility."

 

[Mojo]

- The anecdotes to which I refer as being evidence for immateriality are those in which the patient is said to know of events and/or situations of which he/she should not know through normal means.

No, they aren't. For example, in the one you have most recently cited, the patient said that an operation was carried out in an operating theatre, that surgical waste was placed in a yellow bag, and that someone was having their leg amputated, all of which they could have known via perfectly normal means.

 

[Mojo]

And this:

Wrong, very wrong. You continue to ignore the very obvious fact that the scientific model is considerably more likely than your model which includes an immaterial soul. And since you've given up trying to prove "immortality" and now claim to be trying to show the existence of "immaterial", you ABSOLUTELY need more than "virtually any possibility."

 

[godless dave]

No, they aren't. In the one you have most recently cited, the patient said that an operation was carried out in an operating theatre, that surgical waste was placed in a yellow bag, and that someone was having their leg amputated, all of which they could have known via perfectly mundane means.

...if the incident happened at all, and if the patient remembered it accurately, and if the book's author reported the patient's statements accurately. We have no way of verifying any of those things.

 

[JayUtah]

The anecdotes to which I refer as being evidence for immateriality are those in which the patient is said to know of events and/or situations of which he/she should not know through normal means.

That is what is purported in those stories. As you're well aware, those stories lack the appropriate controls for them to be considered evidence of some supernatural means. It's no different that people assuming UFOs must be aliens because there isn't enough evidence to establish a mundane explanation.

I do think that the prior probability is actually much more, but that virtually any possibility is enough for my purposes here.

Asked and answered a dozen times. Your strategy is well established and even admitted to by you: you want to contrive a statistic problem that purports to prove it's impossible for you not to be right. But you simply ignore everyone who tells you in great detail how that contrivance is wrong.

 

[abaddon]

Annnnoid, Fudbucker, sphenisc, jt512, caveman 1917, Nick Terry, and Dani,
- Is it possible that OOFLam is wrong?
- If none of you guys answer me, I will assume that your answers are, "Yes."

One of the most dishonest statements I have ever seen.

 

[The Sparrow]

One of the most dishonest statements I have ever seen.

Please realize, while you and others are frustrated and angry at the dishonestly and manipulation being attempted, Jabba is chuckling and thinking this is all a fun game and we're all having a good time.

 

[JayUtah]

...if the book's author reported the patient's statements accurately. We have no way of verifying any of those things.

In some cases we do, as I illustrated in the cases of Sabom and Sartori. Jabba's editors wrongly insinuated that Sabom had controlled for all natural variables. He had not, and he spoke out to that effect. The editors were clearly hoping no one would delve into the actual research Sabom did and see how they had manipulated it to appear to support life after death. The editors also wrongly reported that Sartori was a "PhD-level nurse," when her doctorate was in a field in no way connected to psychology or medicine. I gather the editors wanted their readers to think Sartori had an academic qualification in scientific investigation. Understandable, since it appears Sartori herself also wants to convey that impression.

These are two excerpts that Jabba decided were impressive enough to quote here. But it's obvious he took no steps to verify that his editors had fairly reported them. If these are the two that Jabba feels were the most credible, and they patently are not, then what's to be said about the rest of the book? We have ample evidence that we cannot implicitly trust Jabba's editors to recount stories faithfully enough to be believed.

 

[wollery]

...snip...

The anecdotes to which I refer as being evidence for immateriality are those in which the patient is said to know of events and/or situations of which he/she should not know through normal means.

...snip...

The bolded part is your problem.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I'm confused now. Is someone saying that the sum of a lot of subjectivities is evidence of something objective outside the realm of psychology and related disciplines?

 

[Dancing David]

Fudbucker,

- Thanks for stopping by.

- "OOFLam" is the hypothesis that we each have only one finite life (at most).

- I've been claiming that
1. Anecdotes can constitute evidence re scientific hypotheses.
2. Some anecdotal NDEs constitute evidence of immateriality.
3. Immateriality supports the possibility that OOFLam is wrong.
4. Given OOFLam, the likelihood of my current existence is virtually zero. And,
5. Consequently, according to Bayesian statistics, OOFLam has to be wrong...

- You are one of the few participants that appear to agree with me re #1.
- I'm hoping that I can interest you in #2 and the rest.

Sophistry shall avail you not

 

[Jabba]

The NDE anecdotes that have been collected so far only establish that a non-trivial percentage of people report a set of very similar spiritual (at least to them) experiences near the moment of death. Science has tried to explain these with various hypotheses (oxygen deprivation, ketamine-type chemicals that produce OOB feelings, etc.).

I think it's interesting that so many people report having these experiences. I think it's surprising that, if materialism is true, many people report highly spiritual experiences near death. It's not what I would have predicted. Surprising results have to be explained. But the anecdotes aren't good evidence for survival-after-death. They only establish the fact that people report these experiences.

Awhile back, there was a big NDE study with signs in places people couldn't see. What would have happened in a person had reported an NDE and reported exactly right what the hidden sign said? That would have been a hugely significant piece of anecdotal evidence, and if more than one person had reported what the various signs were, it would have been covered extensively. But nobody was able to tell what was on the signs, so the survival-after-death hypothesis took a bit of a hit when that study didn't produce any good results.

Fudbucker,
- Fortunately (for me), that was just the beginning study and ended up with really only one potential 'candidate,' and, who was not in a 'targeted' room.

- From https://iands.org/news/news/front-page-news/1060-aware-study-initial-results-are-published.html.

AWARE STUDY INITIAL RESULTS ARE PUBLISHED!
Last Updated: Wednesday, 17 August 2016 14:52
Dr. Sam ParniaThe AWARE study (AWAreness during REsuscitation) is a multi-hospital clinical study of the brain and consciousness during cardiac arrest, including testing the validity of perceptions during the out-of-body part of near-death experiences (NDEs). Dr. Sam Parnia is the principal investigator. The initial results, from the first four years of the study, were published last December in the medical journal Resuscitation (PDF).

Of the 2,060 cardiac arrests during the study, 140 patients survived and could be interviewed for the study. Of these, 101 patients had detailed interviews, which identified 9 patients who had an NDE. Of the 9 NDErs, two had detailed memories with awareness of the physical environment. One NDEr's experience was verified as accurate; the other was too ill for an in-depth interview. These two NDEs occurred in non-acute areas where no visual target was present, so further verification of visual awareness was not possible. Further study and, perhaps, a reassessment of the methodology and goals of the study are warranted.
...
Of the 2,060 patients in the study, only 140 survived and were well enough to have a Stage 1 interview. Of these 140, 39 were not able to complete the Stage 2 interview, mostly due to fatigue. Of the remaining 101 patients interviewed in Stage 2, only 9 were deemed to have had an NDE (9%) and of these 9 NDErs, only two reported memories of auditory/visual awareness of the physical environment. Of these two, one was not able to follow up with an in-depth Stage 3 interview due to ill health. The other patient had verified perceptions of CA events:

During the NDE, the patient felt quite euphoric.
The patient heard an automated voice saying "Shock the patient, shock the patient."
The patient rose near the ceiling and looked down on his physical body, the nurse and another man, bald and "quite a chunky fella", who wore blue scrubs and a blue hat. The patient could tell the man was bald because of where the hat was.
The next day, the patient recognized the bald man who attended him during the resuscitation.
The medical record confirmed the use of an AED (Automated External Defibrillator) that would give the automated instructions the patient heard and the role that the identified man played during the resuscitation.
Unfortunately, both cases of CA NDEs with auditory/visual awareness occurred in non-acute areas of the hospital, without shelves, so further analysis of the accuracy of VA was not possible.

 

[godless dave]

The other patient had verified perceptions of CA events:

During the NDE, the patient felt quite euphoric.
The patient heard an automated voice saying "Shock the patient, shock the patient."
The patient rose near the ceiling and looked down on his physical body, the nurse and another man, bald and "quite a chunky fella", who wore blue scrubs and a blue hat. The patient could tell the man was bald because of where the hat was.
The next day, the patient recognized the bald man who attended him during the resuscitation.
The medical record confirmed the use of an AED (Automated External Defibrillator) that would give the automated instructions the patient heard and the role that the identified man played during the resuscitation.
Unfortunately, both cases of CA NDEs with auditory/visual awareness occurred in non-acute areas of the hospital, without shelves, so further analysis of the accuracy of VA was not possible.[/i]

Even if that account is accurate - and we have no reason to think it is - all it shows is that someone who underwent defibrillation to treat sudden cardiac arrest remembered hearing the defibrillator's voice prompts and remembered what one of the people attending him looked like. Not exactly extraordinary.

 

[Nonpareil]

Unfortunately, both cases of CA NDEs with auditory/visual awareness occurred in non-acute areas of the hospital, without shelves, so further analysis of the accuracy of VA was not possible.

So even your own source, which is hilariously biased - seriously, citing an IANDS article is barely above trying to get people to take AboveTopSecret seriously - admits that it can't verify that the account was actually accurate.

Not particularly compelling.

 

[JayUtah]

Not exactly extraordinary.

Nor relevant to his claims. The problem with so many of these purported experiences is that the interpretation of them as necessarily supernatural relies upon simplistic assumptions about what would otherwise be possible. People are sedated or unresponsive in some way, and it's just assumed their brains aren't processing sensory input or creating memory. It's not an unrealistic assumption, but it's an assumption nonetheless; it doesn't rise to the level of proving the necessity of a supernatural cause because the more parsimonious conclusion -- and the one reached by these researchers -- is that effect is an exception to the assumption, not proof of an entirely new and otherwise unknown phenomenon. It's no different than UFO enthusiasts claiming something must be the result of visiting aliens because it doesn't fit the canonical or assumed behavior of some handful of known causes.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I'm not assuming that that is true "in the data." Our data is simply that we have two people who each got lost and each found water and returned. I don't actually use the information that they claim to have been helped by God in the calculation.




I'm not treating their return as evidence of God helping them. I'm separately computing the probability of the observed data under H1 and and H2, and taking the ratio to see which hypothesis better predicts the data.




As I said, I didn't actually use the fact that they said God saved them in the computation. I only used the fact that they both returned.




No. I conclude that the data are more consistent with the God hypothesis than with the random hypothesis by a factor of 850.




No. We would conclude that the probability of 3 out of 3 lost explorers surviving is 32,000 times more likely under the God hypothesis than under the random hypothesis, where each explorer has only a 2% chance of returning.




We haven't confirmed anything. We've only showed that the data are more consistent with one hypothesis than another.

Except that data is very likely to be unreliable. We will hear about those who find water and survive. An unknown number didn't.

There is a circularity in the fact that "finding water" is a given for "survive and tell the tale".

You know, statistics are only, at the very best, as reliable as the input data.

Hans

 

[Loss Leader]

- From https://iands.org/news/news/front-page-news/1060-aware-study-initial-results-are-published.html.

AWARE STUDY INITIAL RESULTS ARE PUBLISHED!
Last Updated: Wednesday, 17 August 2016 14:52
]

So you're back to quoting articles about the AWARE study instead of the study itself? I guess that makes it easier to pretend that even the one person who had a relatable NDE only remembered something a conscious person in his position could, not any words or toys hidden on high shelves.

It also makes it easier to ignore the fact that the AWARE researchers detailed how they couldn't control for confounding factors. And one definitely doesn't have to address that they never got any information from someone during a time of brain death.

And you can skip right over the fact that the researchers concluded that memory during times of low brain activity was possible, entertaining not one single word about immateriality.

So you've found a real study by real doctors that most would consider evidence of the effects observed . None of that supports your case.

And none of it excuses you from presenting the study in a manner that is intellectually dishonest.