ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Closed Thread
Old 11th November 2016, 10:42 AM   #1081
wea
Critical Thinker
 
wea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: EU
Posts: 305
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- As you know, there is no sort of absolute probability.
I didn't know. What does it mean?
wea is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th November 2016, 11:36 AM   #1082
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,279
Originally Posted by wea View Post
I didn't know. What does it mean?
Probabilities are pictures of uncertainty. We picture them informally as a percentage of belief that a certain proposition reflects fact. Slightly less informally we picture them as a number between 0 and 1 (just a percentage in proper fractional or decimal form) to which we can apply an algebra and a calculus that allows us to express complex relationships among uncertain values. In the full vista of that realm, the pictures of uncertainty are functions of one or more variables and methods of convolving those functions to produce, in the end, hopefully meaningful advice for how to behave in the face of the uncertainty they represent. We cannot resolve the uncertainty, but we can combine them in ways that let us reason about whether more or less uncertainty results from the combination.

Jabba is correct in trying to tell us that probability is inherently uncertain. The responses that tell him probability is necessarily still based on fact or involve fact are correct. But the dance that's being performed here is not as coordinated as all that.

The Bayes approach to probability is different in that it relaxes the rigor of measurement or simulation that would ordinarily build up the picture of some given uncertainty. Such as in the classic example of Bayesian search, we are allowed to quantify our expertise in a more nebulous fashion in selecting places we believe are most likely to to produce results, and then use actual search results to refine that expert opinion for what to do next. (Or, conversely, use the expertise to evaluate the strength of the search results.) But expertise in this example is still fact -- just not very articulable or otherwise quantifiable fact.

Bayesian inference may be used to reason in the face of uncommon uncertainty, but Jabba is doing it wrong. His approach is entirely uncertain. There are far too many degrees of freedom in the approach he's taken, and he knows it. Which is why he is so desperately trying to beg agreement on one point or another so that he doesn't have to justify the numbers he's simply pulling out of thin air. He wants to constrain his unbridled problem by tricking his opponents into not contesting the constraints he's simply applied arbitrarily.

But the most egregious failure on Jabba's part, in my opinion, is not that he is simply making up numbers. It is that he is proffering an inference as if it were a proof. Jabba is telling us that probability is not absolute as a way of excusing that he has nothing absolute on his side, and that he therefore needs to resort to a handwaving probabilistic argument rather than a factual one, not because it's appropriate but because that's all that's available to him.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th November 2016, 11:53 AM   #1083
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,191
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
Since when are probabilities based on anything other than facts?

21st November 2012.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th November 2016, 11:54 AM   #1084
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 59,838
I feel old, now.
__________________
"What is best in life?"
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th November 2016, 11:55 AM   #1085
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,069
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post

__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th November 2016, 05:04 AM   #1086
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,171
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Jabba,

You seem to be getting turned around. Let's review how we got here:

You stated that you could show by probability that people are immortal (I disagree that this constitutes a proof but that's a different problem). In order to show that people could be immortal, you needed to show that immaterial souls exist for everybody. If that was impossible, then there is no way it could form the basis for a probability.

So you moved down a level to show that immaterial souls do actually exist. If they don't exist, there cannot be your immortality. You needed a definition of soul so that you could develop testable, repeatable proof that souls exist. You didn't define souls. Instead, you moved down a level to say that if non-physical perception could be proven, that would be a first step to defining and proving immaterial souls. You were unable to do that. So you moved down again to say that if NDE's or OBE's were proven, it would be a first step to proving non-physical perception which would be a first step to proving immaterial souls which would be a first step to defining and testing immaterial souls.

Remember, if NDE's and OBE's cannot be falsifiably, testably shown to be true then, ultimately, you cannot claim that immortal immateriality is a possible alternate explanation to material neurosystems.

That's where we are.





Jabba,

You have never once mentioned any desire to prove that immateriality has some "probability" based upon anecdotes. This is an entirely new claim from you.

So now you are saying that you first are estimating the probability of immaterial immortality and then discounting it by the probability that your "evidence" of immortality might be false?

So is that 1% of 1%? Are you now begging for a 0.01% chance that material neurosystems might not fully explain consciousness?

If so, I reject it. In order for there to be a chance that consciousness could be explained by immaterial souls, immateriality must exist. You have yet to show that.

In any case, the chance that something is true based on anecdotes is zero. Anecdotes are not evidence. We have reviewed this. Evidence is repeatable and testable. We might as well estimate the chance that Bob is at the mall based upon whether there are lions in Madagascar. It makes no sense. What is the chance that the earth is flat based upon the billions of anecdotes to that effect? Or the chance that demons exist based upon all of the anecdotes of exorcisms?

Anecdotes are not evidence. They do not indicate a truth value in any way. Only repeatable, falsifiable testing is evidence.





To quote The Hunt for Red October: Andrei, you've lost another submarine?

You now want to estimate the probability that paranormal studies might be true to factor into the probability that NDE anecdotes might be true to factor into the probability that immaterial souls might exist to factor into the probability that people might be immortal.

Let me short-cut through that for you. Paranormal studies are exactly as true as they are repeatable and falsifiable. Let me short-cut that again. There are absolutely no instances of any paranormal phenomena that have ever been falsifiably tested to be true. Absolutely none.





Yes. That's where we started. That's what we're doing now. We need repeatable, falsifiable evidence that non-physical perception is real.

This is exactly the same standard to which we must hold all theories if we want to create convincing arguments. So let's get to it.
LL,

- Here's how I currently understand our discussion.

- I began this thread claiming that I could virtually prove our immortality through Bayesian statistics.
- I later revised my claim to something more direct -- that I can virtually prove that the OOFLam hypothesis (that we each have Only One Finite Life at most) is wrong.
- The Bayesian formula I proposed using includes prior probabilities for OOFLam and its complement. I claimed that the prior probability of OOFLam was no more than 99%, and consequently that the prior probability of its complement is at least 1%.

- Nobody here would accept my estimate -- believing instead that the prior probability of OOFLam was more than 99%.
- But maybe, this is where I'm missing your point. Maybe, your point is that attaching any number at this stage of understanding is meaningless (something like that)...
- Am I getting warm?
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th November 2016, 05:24 AM   #1087
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 59,838
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Maybe, your point is that attaching any number at this stage of understanding is meaningless (something like that)...
- Am I getting warm?
Yeah, you're getting warm. You're entirely wrong.
__________________
"What is best in life?"
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th November 2016, 05:59 AM   #1088
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 22,331
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I began this thread claiming that I could virtually prove our immortality through Bayesian statistics.
- I later revised my claim to something more direct -- that I can virtually prove that the OOFLam hypothesis (that we each have Only One Finite Life at most) is wrong.
- The Bayesian formula I proposed using includes prior probabilities for OOFLam and its complement. I claimed that the prior probability of OOFLam was no more than 99%, and consequently that the prior probability of its complement is at least 1%.

- Nobody here would accept my estimate -- believing instead that the prior probability of OOFLam was more than 99%.
- But maybe, this is where I'm missing your point. Maybe, your point is that attaching any number at this stage of understanding is meaningless (something like that)...
- Am I getting warm?

Seriously, Jabba? My last post addressed this head-on.

If you want to establish a probability that the neurosystem does not fully explain consciousness, you have to show that some other explanation is at least possible. If something is impossible, it cannot be an alternate explanation.

You, not anyone else, claimed that the existence of the immaterial soul was enough to show that some other explanation besides material nervous systems possibly explained consciousness.

Nobody here ever asked that whatever you call OOFLAM have a probability of be less than 1%. Nearly everyone asked that you show that some other explanation at least be possible before giving it any probability.

So here we sit again, waiting for you to show that immateriality exists and so at least possibly provides a path to immortality. Failing that, I personally have allowed you to merely show that non-physical perception exists as evidence of immaterial souls as evidence of a possibility of immortality (though many disagree with allowing that level of attenuation).

Your job is to now prove with repeatable, falsifiable evidence that non-physical perception exists. Yet you are now spending your posts begging for some sliver of probability, begging for some smaller sliver of probability of another probability, calling me intransigent, attempting to conflate other portions of your argument with this small piece and, failing all of that, just doing it all again.

But the step we are on is the one where you show by repeatable, falsifiable testing that non-physical perception exists. Let's not leave this step until we conclude it.
__________________
- I haven't refused to answer it; I just haven't been able to answer it...
Jabba

Do not pretend I support your argument and do not PM me.
- Nick Terry
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th November 2016, 06:03 AM   #1089
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,171
LL,
- Right now, my immediate aim is not to convince you that my position is correct -- my immediate aim is for you and I to simply agree upon what our positions are.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th November 2016, 07:52 AM   #1090
The Sparrow
Muse
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 789
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,
- Right now, my immediate aim is not to convince you that my position is correct -- my immediate aim is for you and I to simply agree upon what our positions are.
More stalling. We all know and understand what your "position" is.
The Sparrow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th November 2016, 07:58 AM   #1091
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,191
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Here's how I currently understand our discussion.

- I began this thread claiming that I could virtually prove our immortality through Bayesian statistics.

You couldn't.

Quote:
- I later revised my claim to something more direct -- that I can virtually prove that the OOFLam hypothesis (that we each have Only One Finite Life at most) is wrong.

You can't.

Quote:
- The Bayesian formula I proposed using includes prior probabilities for OOFLam and its complement.

But it assumes that "OOFLam" includes immaterial souls, so it is wrong.

Quote:
I claimed that the prior probability of OOFLam was no more than 99%, and consequently that the prior probability of its complement is at least 1%.

- Nobody here would accept my estimate -- believing instead that the prior probability of OOFLam was more than 99%.

Nope. Nobody here accepts your estimates because you are unable to provide any justification for them, and are clearly just making them up to achieve your desired result.

Quote:
- But maybe, this is where I'm missing your point. Maybe, your point is that attaching any number at this stage of understanding is meaningless (something like that)...
- Am I getting warm?

Yes, you clearly lack the understanding (of statistics, of logic, and of the model of reality you are attacking) necessary to produce anything meaningful here.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

Last edited by Mojo; 12th November 2016 at 07:59 AM.
Mojo is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th November 2016, 08:03 AM   #1092
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,171
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Seriously, Jabba? My last post addressed this head-on.

If you want to establish a probability that the neurosystem does not fully explain consciousness, you have to show that some other explanation is at least possible. If something is impossible, it cannot be an alternate explanation...
LL,
- Let's try soundbites.

- I am trying to show that some other explanation besides the neurosystem is at least possible.

- More specifically, I'm trying to show that some of our perceptions cannot be explained by the physical neurosystem alone -- and consequently, there has to be something more in the explanation.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th November 2016, 08:03 AM   #1093
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,191
Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
More stalling. We all know and understand what your "position" is.

Yes, but it isn't clear that Jabba does.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th November 2016, 08:09 AM   #1094
The Sparrow
Muse
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 789
It's like a kid who is trying to convince his parents to get a new video game for him. Desperately throw wildly divergent questions and scenarios at them, hoping somehow one will stick.

We've seen all of them now, they are just repeating.
The Sparrow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th November 2016, 08:11 AM   #1095
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,191
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Let's try soundbites.

How can appealing to style over substance possibly advance your case?

Quote:
- I am trying to show that some other explanation besides the neurosystem is at least possible.

- More specifically, I'm trying to show that some of our perceptions cannot be explained by the physical neurosystem alone -- and consequently, there has to be something more in the explanation.

And ten seconds searching the forum shows that you have been trying, and failing, to do this for at least two years and nine months.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

Last edited by Mojo; 12th November 2016 at 08:31 AM.
Mojo is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th November 2016, 08:36 AM   #1096
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,171
LL,
- Currently, I'm claiming that if the anecdotes are true, there has to be something immaterial going on -- something not explained by the physical neurosystem alone.
- Consequently, I need to provide evidence that at least some of the anecdotes are true.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th November 2016, 08:40 AM   #1097
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,191
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Currently, I'm claiming that if the anecdotes are true, there has to be something immaterial going on -- something not explained by the physical neurosystem alone.
- Consequently, I need to provide evidence that at least some of the anecdotes are true.

You have conspicuously failed to do this.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th November 2016, 08:40 AM   #1098
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 22,331
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,
- Let's try soundbites.

- I am trying to show that some other explanation besides the neurosystem is at least possible.

- More specifically, I'm trying to show that some of our perceptions cannot be explained by the physical neurosystem alone -- and consequently, there has to be something more in the explanation.
Jabba, this is s bizzare post, especially following my last couple. I have explained in detail that I understood your ultimate aim. I have explained in excruciating detail that I understood your current aim. In fact, the contours of your current step were defined by our conversation.

I agree, you must show that noon-physical perception is true. Unless and until you do, you cannot argue that souls are even possible and cannot then speculate as to the odds of immortality being a better explanation than mortal neurosystems.

Why are we repeating this? As per your own words, please show that some preceptor cannot be explained by physical neurosystems. Make sure your evidence is testable, falsifiable and repeatable. Otherwise you will not have shown anything.
__________________
- I haven't refused to answer it; I just haven't been able to answer it...
Jabba

Do not pretend I support your argument and do not PM me.
- Nick Terry
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th November 2016, 09:12 AM   #1099
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 37,171
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,
- Currently, I'm claiming that if the anecdotes are true, there has to be something immaterial going on -- something not explained by the physical neurosystem alone.
- Consequently, I need to provide evidence that at least some of the anecdotes are true.
Just one would be a start. How about concentrating on that?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th November 2016, 09:24 AM   #1100
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 59,838
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,
- Right now, my immediate aim is not to convince you that my position is correct -- my immediate aim is for you and I to simply agree upon what our positions are.
More fractal shuffling. This isn't being absent-minded. This is being dishonest.

Quote:
- Let's try soundbites.
So, like usual, then.
__________________
"What is best in life?"
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th November 2016, 09:26 AM   #1101
sackett
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 4,843
This isn't circular, spherical, or toroidal reasoning. This is Moebius reasoning: one surface, one edge, one gobble, one degook, forever'n ever amen.

Jabba, there's such a thing as terminal boredom.
__________________
Fill the seats of justice with good men; not so absolute in goodness as to forget what human frailty is. -- Thomas Jefferson

What region of the earth is not filled with our calamities? -- Virgil

Last edited by sackett; 12th November 2016 at 09:53 AM.
sackett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th November 2016, 09:36 AM   #1102
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 19,547
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,
- Let's try soundbites.


Quote:
- I am trying to show that some other explanation besides the neurosystem is at least possible.
Of course it is possible. At least it cannot be proved to be impossible.

Quote:
- More specifically, I'm trying to show that some of our perceptions cannot be explained by the physical neurosystem alone -- and consequently, there has to be something more in the explanation.
Ehr, no you are not. You are saying that you will try to do so, but so far, you have done nothing.

Hans
__________________
Don't. Just don't.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th November 2016, 09:36 AM   #1103
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 22,331
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,
- Currently, I'm claiming that if the anecdotes are true, there has to be something immaterial going on -- something not explained by the physical neurosystem alone.
- Consequently, I need to provide evidence that at least some of the anecdotes are true.
Evidence is falsifiably and repeatably testable. Nothing else is evidence. I agree, you need evidence. Go get some.
__________________
- I haven't refused to answer it; I just haven't been able to answer it...
Jabba

Do not pretend I support your argument and do not PM me.
- Nick Terry
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th November 2016, 09:37 AM   #1104
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 19,547
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,
- Currently, I'm claiming that if the anecdotes are true, there has to be something immaterial going on -- something not explained by the physical neurosystem alone.
- Consequently, I need to provide evidence that at least some of the anecdotes are true.
OK, get on with it, then.

Hans
__________________
Don't. Just don't.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th November 2016, 09:40 AM   #1105
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,171
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,
- Let's try soundbites.
- I am trying to show that some other explanation besides the neurosystem is at least possible.
- More specifically, I'm trying to show that some of our perceptions cannot be explained by the physical neurosystem alone -- and consequently, there has to be something more in the explanation.
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Jabba, this is s bizzare post, especially following my last couple. I have explained in detail that I understood your ultimate aim. I have explained in excruciating detail that I understood your current aim. In fact, the contours of your current step were defined by our conversation.
I agree, you must show that noon-physical perception is true. Unless and until you do, you cannot argue that souls are even possible and cannot then speculate as to the odds of immortality being a better explanation than mortal neurosystems.
Why are we repeating this? As per your own words, please show that some preceptor cannot be explained by physical neurosystems. Make sure your evidence is testable, falsifiable and repeatable. Otherwise you will not have shown anything.
LL,

- I was leading up to the need for me to provide evidence, and consequently the need for you and I to agree upon what constitutes evidence.
- Previously, I had provided Wikipedia's (and my) definition of evidence, i.e.
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.[1] This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.

- My next claim is that the anecdotes do provide support for the existence of immateriality.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th November 2016, 09:48 AM   #1106
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Moderator
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 10,783
Even if every one of those anecdotes that you mention were true, so what? You end up with a lot of evidence that some people have had experiences that they perceive as NDE or OoBE.

I have had two out-of-body-experiences, as explained earlier on this thread. Those experiences do not do anything to support the idea that there's anything immaterial going on. They are completely explicable by what we understand about the physical neurosystem.
__________________
London, Hamburg, Paris, Rome, Rio, Hong Kong, Tokyo; L.A., New York, Amsterdam, Monte Carlo, Shard End and...

Vodka kills salmonella and all other enemies of freedom for sure - Nationalcosmopolitan
Agatha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th November 2016, 09:58 AM   #1107
sackett
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 4,843
'Pologies, Jabba

Originally Posted by sackett View Post
...

Jabba, there's such a thing as terminal boredom.
I'm sorry I didn't define my terminology.

Terminal boredom is the state or condition of sitting in a station waiting for a train that WILL NEVER arrive.

Rather how I imagine eternity.
__________________
Fill the seats of justice with good men; not so absolute in goodness as to forget what human frailty is. -- Thomas Jefferson

What region of the earth is not filled with our calamities? -- Virgil
sackett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th November 2016, 09:58 AM   #1108
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Moderator
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 10,783
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- My next claim is that the anecdotes do provide support for the existence of immateriality.
I don't agree that they do, but just for a moment I'll follow this claim.

Even if you were to show that there's something immaterial going on, it's a very big and unsupported leap to claim that immateriality means immortality. You still have to overcome the hurdle that this immateriality (if it exists) doesn't appear to be able to survive the death of the organism.
__________________
London, Hamburg, Paris, Rome, Rio, Hong Kong, Tokyo; L.A., New York, Amsterdam, Monte Carlo, Shard End and...

Vodka kills salmonella and all other enemies of freedom for sure - Nationalcosmopolitan
Agatha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th November 2016, 09:59 AM   #1109
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,171
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Evidence is falsifiably and repeatably testable. Nothing else is evidence. I agree, you need evidence. Go get some.
LL,
- This seems to be our primary disagreement at this point -- and, what I was trying to get at.
- My claim is that some evidence is not falsifiably and repeatably testable. I claim that evidence is any information that supports (or, "dissupports"?) a hypothesis.
- Then, I claim that the anecdotes of which I am aware do support the existence of immateriality. To me, the question is to what extent do they support it. That may be very slight. But to me, they do provide some support -- and therefore, evidence -- for immateriality.
-
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th November 2016, 10:10 AM   #1110
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,279
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Currently, I'm claiming that if the anecdotes are true, there has to be something immaterial going on -- something not explained by the physical neurosystem alone.
- Consequently, I need to provide evidence that at least some of the anecdotes are true.
NO.

Even if the anecdotes are true, they provide no observation that cannot be explained in terms of a functioning organic brain. Further, you have a specific thing you need to prove, not something vaguely supernatural.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th November 2016, 10:21 AM   #1111
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,279
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
My claim is that some evidence is not falsifiably and repeatably testable.
Evidence purporting a previously unknown causation must be falsifiable and testable if it is to have any scientific value. Your claim is wrong in light of what you intend to prove. Shall I point you to the thread where you completely fell flat on your face when attempting to discuss the nature of evidence? Or are you still pretending it doesn't exist?

Quote:
I claim that evidence is any information that supports (or, "dissupports"?) a hypothesis.
No. This "supports" crap is the same equivocal nonsense you tried to pull in the Shroud thread. Here, just as there, you have no actual evidence, so you try to shame your critics into accepting a lower standard of proof. You attribute some E to some H on no basis other than your fervent wish that it be so, and you try to dress that attribution up as a causal relationship by saying it is "supportive of" the conclusion.

Your belief that OBEs or NDEs must have some sort of supernatural component does not "support" your claim that you have an immortal soul.

Quote:
Then, I claim that the anecdotes of which I am aware do support the existence of immateriality. To me, the question is to what extent do they support it. That may be very slight. But to me, they do provide some support -- and therefore, evidence -- for immateriality.
-
Yes, yes, we've heard this all before. You have "circumstantial evidence" for your belief. How many times, over how many years, are you going to subject your critics to this same song and dance in lieu of the promised proof?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th November 2016, 10:22 AM   #1112
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,069
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,
- This seems to be our primary disagreement at this point -- and, what I was trying to get at.
- My claim is that some evidence is not falsifiably and repeatably testable. I claim that evidence is any information that supports (or, "dissupports"?) a hypothesis.
-

Maybe in a court of law, but definitely not in a mathematical proof.

Even if these anecdotes were evidence, you would have to show that they do not equally support other hypotheses that do not involve an immaterial soul. For example, that OOBs are merely evidence of subconscious brain activity.
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th November 2016, 10:22 AM   #1113
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 22,331
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I was leading up to the need for me to provide evidence, and consequently the need for you and I to agree upon what constitutes evidence.
- Previously, I had provided Wikipedia's (and my) definition of evidence, i.e.
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.[1] This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.

- My next claim is that the anecdotes do provide support for the existence of immateriality.

Jabba,

From the very same Wikipedia article:
Originally Posted by [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence#Evidence_in_science
Evidence[/url]The rules for evidence used by science are collected systematically in an attempt to avoid the bias inherent to anecdotal evidence.
And from the further Wikipedia article on Scientific Evidence:
Quote:
Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.
So, by the very source that you personally quoted to me, anecdotes are not competent scientific evidence. In fact, according to your own source, the goal of scientific evidence is actually to eliminate the problems inherent in anecdotes.

I agree with you that you have found a source for a reasonable definition of scientific evidence. And I agree with that definition. Now you need to present that evidence - testable, falsifiable and repeatable.
__________________
- I haven't refused to answer it; I just haven't been able to answer it...
Jabba

Do not pretend I support your argument and do not PM me.
- Nick Terry
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th November 2016, 10:35 AM   #1114
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,279
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
...and consequently the need for you and I to agree upon what constitutes evidence.
It is non-negotiable. You either have evidence that falls under the scientific definition of it, or you do not. You have been given that definition. If you are unable to meet the scientific standard of proof, then you may not suggest that the scientific hypothesis for the self must necessarily include a soul.

Quote:
My next claim is that the anecdotes do provide support for the existence of immateriality.
You are not here to prove "immateriality." Do not widen the goalposts just because you admit you cannot hit your original target.

Your anecdotes, even if true, do not prove the necessity of anything supernatural. You have listed no observation that cannot have been the product of an organic brain.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th November 2016, 10:42 AM   #1115
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 22,331
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- My claim is that some evidence is not falsifiably and repeatably testable. I claim that evidence is any information that supports (or, "dissupports"?) a hypothesis.

Except that non-falsifiable statements aren't evidence. If they were, I could simply point to the billions (billions!) of people who claim to have personally felt God's presence as support for the existence of God. I could point to the idea that psychokinetic power fades unless everyone believes in it as evidence of psychokinesis.

Can you show me any unfalsifiable claim that recognizably contributes to the support or disproof of anything?


Quote:
- Then, I claim that the anecdotes of which I am aware do support the existence of immateriality. To me, the question is to what extent do they support it. That may be very slight. But to me, they do provide some support -- and therefore, evidence -- for immateriality.
-

Once again, an anecdote cannot be evidence. Do all of the anecdotes of demonic possession make it even slightly more likely that demons exist? How about mermaids? Does my anecdote of not having a vision while near death cancel out one anecdote of someone who claims to have? Evidence is the banishment of the anecdote.

If you believe that anecdotes provide "some support" for immateriality, then you stand apart from anyone schooled in the scientific method.

If you believe that science is not the realm in which you are dealing, then you stand apart from anyone who insists on evidence before adopting a proposition.

If you believe that evidence is not a requirement for your ideas, then you stand firmly in the camp of religion and you have no business attempting to convince anyone other than yourself of anything.
__________________
- I haven't refused to answer it; I just haven't been able to answer it...
Jabba

Do not pretend I support your argument and do not PM me.
- Nick Terry
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th November 2016, 10:44 AM   #1116
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 59,838
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,

- I was leading up to the need for me to provide evidence, and consequently the need for you and I to agree upon what constitutes evidence.
BS. You were never going to get there. You'll continue to divert the conversation into more and more sub issues until you're comfortably unable to address the original points. That's your shtick.
__________________
"What is best in life?"
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th November 2016, 11:08 AM   #1117
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,279
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
BS. You were never going to get there. You'll continue to divert the conversation into more and more sub issues until you're comfortably unable to address the original points. That's your shtick.
Indeed it is. It's how he kept the Shroud thread going long after he admitted he couldn't prove it was real. He transformed the argument into a negotiation for what was to be considered proper evidence of authenticity, and stamped his feet and whined when no one would agree to the standard of proof he was trying to foist. That gave him the excuse he needed to insinuate he "would have" won the debate if only his critics had not been so closed-minded in contrast to unnamed others, whom he said would have been much more amenable.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th November 2016, 11:13 AM   #1118
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 22,331
A note on legal evidence:

The reader will note that law has standards of evidence far lower than science. There are several reasons. First is that legal proof, unlike science, is not meant to describe the world as it is. It is meant to fit the gambler's philosophy of how sure we should be of something before imposing a burden on someone else.

Probable cause, the lowest burden of proof in law, also imposes the lowest burden on others - only that they submit to further legal examination. Beyond a reasonable doubt, arguably the highest burden, only says that we're reasonably certain that a person committed a crime. Meanwhile, the definition of the crime might be subject to debate such that its truth value is moot in any case.

Importantly, the law still rejects the unfalsifiable claim. It is illegal to jail someone because he just seems likely to probably do something illegal. Nobody is sent to prison because God told a witness that the defendant was guilty.

The law also strives for the testable and repeatable. Why is DNA evidence so important an advance in forensics? Because we can falsifiably rule in or out that a suspect was at a particular place. Cross-examination exists specifically to falsifiably probe testimony. Body cameras, radar guns, red light cameras, phone histories and more are all aimed at improving falsifiability.
__________________
- I haven't refused to answer it; I just haven't been able to answer it...
Jabba

Do not pretend I support your argument and do not PM me.
- Nick Terry
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th November 2016, 11:45 AM   #1119
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,191
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,

- I was leading up to the need for me to provide evidence, and consequently the need for you and I to agree upon what constitutes evidence.
- Previously, I had provided Wikipedia's (and my) definition of evidence, i.e.
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.[1] This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.

- My next claim is that the anecdotes do provide support for the existence of immateriality.

Oh god.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th November 2016, 12:14 PM   #1120
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,279
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
First is that legal proof, unlike science, is not meant to describe the world as it is. It is meant to fit the gambler's philosophy of how sure we should be of something before imposing a burden on someone else.
But it is rather in this mode that Jabba hopes the anecdotes will be used. He doesn't want to establish fact at this point. He only wants to justify asking his critics to agree there's a 1% chance his immortal soul exists. That is the same sort of gamble. You've made one cogent argument against even that, based on the notion of falsifiability. I've made a different argument on the principle of non sequitur.

Quote:
Meanwhile, the definition of the crime might be subject to debate such that its truth value is moot in any case.
And this is what I have in mind when I pursue my non sequitur rejection of Jabba's claim. Under the law a complaint is insufficient if its allegations do not track the elements of some well-defined offense such as a statute with enough specific detail to permit the defendant to mount a defense. Vague allegations of general misconduct do not form a cause of action. And in science vague claims of supernatural manifestation cannot prove a specific claim not known already to be related. "Something weird happened, therefore ghosts" is not science.

Quote:
Importantly, the law still rejects the unfalsifiable claim.
Indeed my understanding of the law says this is why hearsay, for example, is inadmissible. Because the originator of the evidence cannot be examined, a defense has no power to test and possible falsify it. In the larger sense, the whole purpose of a trial is to test the evidence. Evidence that can't be tested isn't admissible.

Quote:
Cross-examination exists specifically to falsifiably probe testimony.
Along with that is the notion that a court may admit from lay witness may only certain kinds of testimony. The lay witness tells what he perceived through his natural senses and, to a limited extent, what could be rationally gleaned from that. A witness may testify that he heard a loud explosion. He may not testify to his conclusion that it was a terrorist bomb. Similarly anecdotes recounting the witness' belief that his soul left his body are not evidence -- legal or scientific -- of the existence of a soul. His perception of the environment from a seemingly detached perspective would be the operant observation, not his speculation for how it came about.

Quote:
Body cameras, radar guns, red light cameras, phone histories and more are all aimed at improving falsifiability.
'

Body cameras especially, where reasonable suspicion leading to probable cause is at issue, and law enforcement is under increased scrutiny of how they handle stops and arrests. Defendants benefit from having a basis from which to falsify an assumption of probable cause. Prosecutors benefit from having a basis from which to falsify claims of police brutality.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:29 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.