Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

[theprestige]

And he will continue to ignore it because he has a history of not reading his sources. In the Shroud thread he had a habit of referring to long lists of arguments or "scientific" conclusions put together by other people. He could never get more than one or two items into the list before being having to abandon it. His critics read and understood the source material and could therefore argue competently against it. Jabba had not. He had expected everyone to be dutifully impressed by walls o' text or walls o' citations assembled by others, conclude that it probably said what he characterized it as saying, and that it was probably unassailable.

I have called Jabba's bluff on this sort of tactic every time. And he will just keep pretending otherwise.

I have to admit this is my favorite part of these threads: The part where Jabba offers up some supporting document, someone else actually bothers to read it, and it turns out to undermine his claim. Every time, Jabba.

Every. Single. Time.

 

[John Jones]

I have to admit this is my favorite part of these threads: The part where Jabba offers up some supporting document, someone else actually bothers to read it, and it turns out to undermine his claim. Every time, Jabba.

Every. Single. Time.

^QFT^

 

[Jabba]

I think Jabba wants us to accept that souls exist, and then he will use Bayesian statistics to prove that they are immortal.

Dave,
- I want you guys to admit that H does address the experience we all have of self. H just posits that -- because everything is physical -- each specific self can have only one finite life at most.

 

[Belz...]

Dave,
- I want you guys to admit that H does address the experience we all have of self.

That's what we've been telling you for five years now. Why do you need us to admit our own arguments to you?

H just posits that -- because everything is physical -- each specific self can have only one finite life at most.

What does that even mean? Selves don't have lives. They're processes of the brain.

Sheesh, you'd think you'd at least retain _some_ of the stuff you read.

 

[Jabba]

Waterman,
#1. I would argue that anecdotes do constitute evidence -- it's their relative strength that's the issue. I would then argue that the University of Virginia Division of Perceptual Studies has done exactly what a research organization should do in trying to evaluate anecdotal strength...

This is a fundamental disagreement in many of the longer threads here. Anecdotes by their very nature can only be used to evaluate the characteristics of a set of beliefs or potential avenues of further study. They cannot be used to assess the truth value of any claim because the events they describe cannot be independently evaluated or repeated. Plus they often are filtered through the peoples perceptions based on a desired conclusion by the person reporting it. UFOs and Bigfoot are other examples where this is common practice...

Waterman,
- I disagree. Can you provide a reference?

 

[Belz...]

Waterman,
- I disagree. Can you provide a reference?

A reference that personal anecdotes are bad evidence, if they are evidence at all?

You've gut some guts asking for that after all this time.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Waterman,
- I disagree. Can you provide a reference?

You may start here: http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

"The term is usually used in contrast to scientific evidence"

"Anecdotal evidence is often unscientific because it cannot be investigated using the scientific method"

"Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy"

Any questions?

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- I want you guys to admit that H does address the experience we all have of self. H just posits that -- because everything is physical -- each specific self can have only one finite life at most.

We already have, several times.

 

[Jabba]

This is a fundamental disagreement in many of the longer threads here. Anecdotes by their very nature can only be used to evaluate the characteristics of a set of beliefs or potential avenues of further study. They cannot be used to assess the truth value of any claim because the events they describe cannot be independently evaluated or repeated. Plus they often are filtered through the peoples perceptions based on a desired conclusion by the person reporting it. UFOs and Bigfoot are other examples where this is common practice...

Waterman,
- I disagree. Can you provide a reference?

A reference that personal anecdotes are bad evidence, if they are evidence at all?
You've gut some guts asking for that after all this time.

Argumemnon,
- I took Waterman's claim to be that they don't constitute evidence at all. I accept that they tend to be weak as compared to experimental stuff, but they can be quite objectively formidable.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Argumemnon,
- I took Waterman's claim to be that they don't constitute evidence at all. I accept that they tend to be weak as compared to experimental stuff, but they can be quite objectively formidable.

Here's your claim:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8787220#post8787220

"- I think that I can essentially prove immortality using Bayesian statistics."

Get busy with that one.

 

[Belz...]

Argumemnon,
- I took Waterman's claim to be that they don't constitute evidence at all. I accept that they tend to be weak as compared to experimental stuff, but they can be quite objectively formidable.

If they're weak, how can they be formidable? And if they're subjective, how can they be objective?

You're not making any sense.

 

[The Sparrow]

Argumemnon,
- I took Waterman's claim to be that they don't constitute evidence at all. I accept that they tend to be weak as compared to experimental stuff, but they can be quite objectively formidable.

You know someone is desperate when they start questioning the very fundamentals.

It's like on the Simpsons when lawyer Lionel Hutz says "But what is the truth, really? (if you follow me )"

 

[jond]

Dave,
- I want you guys to admit that H does address the experience we all have of self. H just posits that -- because everything is physical -- each specific self can have only one finite life at most.

Jabba, what I want you to address is that each specific self is NOT AN ENTITY. It is a process of a brain. Each brain has only one finite life, the at most part is your personal attempt to add in the notion of potential selves which has no meaning in H.

 

[Jabba]

You may start here: http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

"The term is usually used in contrast to scientific evidence"

"Anecdotal evidence is often unscientific because it cannot be investigated using the scientific method"

"Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy"

Any questions?

Robo,
- No.

 

[JayUtah]

I want you guys to admit that H does address the experience we all have of self.

Gladly, as soon as you stop equivocating what "the experience we all have of self" means. Stop using intentionally vague language and maybe people will agree with you. You have a long, documented history of soliciting agreement to a vague proposition, then dishonestly announcing what you meant by it.

So concede that E, "the experience we all have of self," isn't a soul and we'll be able to move forward.

 

[JayUtah]

I disagree. Can you provide a reference?

Sure, I'll refer to the thread where you discussed this and had to change your proposition in order to get the agreement you sought. When people saw what you were trying to do with their initial agreement, they shut you down immediately. They clearly agreed that the way you wanted to use anecdotal evidence was wrong.

This was settled. Move on.

I find it highly amusing that you presented a body of science you said approached the appropriate rigor, yet you have completely ignored our thorough analysis of it. You didn't read any of it, did you?

 

[JayUtah]

...but they can be quite objectively formidable.

No. Not the way you want to use them.

 

[Jabba]

Jabba, what I want you to address is that each specific self is NOT AN ENTITY. It is a process of a brain. Each brain has only one finite life, the at most part is your personal attempt to add in the notion of potential selves which has no meaning in H.

jond,
- I disagree. Science accepts that condoms and birth control pills prevent potential selves from becoming actual selves.

 

[The Sparrow]

jond,
- I disagree. Science accepts that condoms and birth control pills prevent potential selves from becoming actual selves.

There is no such thing as a 'potential self'. You invented this term to try to sneak in a pool of souls waiting to inhabit a body.

Condoms prevent (usually) sperm from reaching an egg.
BC pills prevent ovulation so there is no egg for a sperm to reach.

 

[Hokulele]

jond,
- I disagree. Science accepts that condoms and birth control pills prevent potential selves from becoming actual selves.

The self still isn't a thing.

Bears...
Franco...
Pope...