1)This is a strawman.A logical fallacy in which the debater clobbers a distorted caracature or outrigjht fabrication of the opposition’s position.For example:If in a debate about economics, Senator whatshisface says to the audience “I don’t know about you but I am not going to trust the economy to Senator Otherguy and his corporate buddies so they can pull an ‘Enron’ on the American people!”.Senator Whatshisface is not addressing the actual tax-cut proposals presented by Sen. Otherguy and is instead clobbering the strawman of Enron’s financial scandal to elicit negative connotations in the minds of the audience.
No one here says anything is true because some scientist said so.Now try agaisn…this time wioth honesty!
2)Scientific methodology IS objective, whether you like it or not.Go study it for a bit before making such assertions.
Isn’t that a strawman in itself? Where has anyone said that scientific methodology isn’t objective? We have “Scientist’s, by and large, are generally not very objective people”, but that’s as close as it gets. And FWIW I tend to agree. Scientists are no more objective than anyone else. The whole point of the scientific method is to force obejctivity into the results despite the lack of objectivity of the researcher.
It’s a choice of reason over absurdity, yes. I still fail to see your point. I suspect you just like to argue for the sake of argument.
And now you want to take your non-point and run it over the goal line, eh? Sorry, no dice. Your “guides based on experience” are NOT automatically equally valid with any other. You haven’t specified what your guides are, so we have no way to determine whether they are more or less valid. You seem to think you can win the argument by not specifying what it is that you are arguing for. It doesn’t work that way.
Well then by all means, tell us what discipline you care to use to demonstrate the existence of souls, and then explain how that discipline makes the case that souls exist as physical entities in the real universe. (That is what we’re debating, you know).
Actually, it is the soul-believers who are trying to apply science. Several people have claimed that souls exist as physical entities. If you stick to saying that a soul is simply a belief of yours, then we’re fine. But if you claim that it objectively exists, then you relegate it to the realm of science. I have already acknowledged that some people believe in souls. If you are trying to get me to acknowledge more than that, then you are the one making scientific claims.
I’m glad you are letting it rest. Had I claimed Occam’s Razor to be anything that it is not, I would understand you wanting to correct me. Since I did not, I have no idea what your point was.
I think PriceGuy hit the nail on the head, Blake:
“Blake, I’m getting really, really tired. Your entire debating style seems to consist of wearing your opponent out with non-sequiturs, misunderstandings and semantic arguments until they say something out of sheer exhaustion that you can twist to suit your argument.”
I am reasonably certain I never said “the soul makes no sense to anyone.” I have spent this whole thread explaining again and again that I don’t believe in souls because there is no objective evidence for them, and the concept is poorly defined. That’s what I mean by “doesn’t make sense”. It hasn’t been defined as a logically coherent idea. That has nothing to do with how any individual might feel about souls; it is an objective statement, NOT a statement about people’s beliefs.
These two statements are NOT equivalent:
This idea is well-defined and logically coherent.
This idea “makes sense” to people.
(1) refers to the reasonableness of the idea itself. (2) refers to the consensus of people’s opinions about the idea. To use (2) as evidence for (1) in and of itself is to commit argumentum ad populum.
As an example, astrology “makes sense” to many people, but when we examine the discipline objectively, it has very little merit.
Then it’s not really analagous, is it?
That’s wonderful, except that I never said that a concept does not make sense to anyone based only on it not making sense to me. Honestly, Blake - where do you dig up these strawmen?
[snip part of post where Blake repeats the same strawman several more times…]
Without the benefit of the afore-mentioned time-machine, that helps us not at all.
I invite you to advance any line of reasoning you see fit. As I already said, I can only dispute what has been posited. You can’t win an argument by saying “Well, you didn’t dispute the super-secrect line of reasoning that I haven’t told you about yet”.
Nope. I’m asking you you why you think that’s relevant.
I must have missed that. Maybe you could quote the definition in question for us.
No, Blake - I’m not going to play your little semantic games. You know perfectly well what a definition is, and I gave you a great example. Right now, we’d settle for any non-vague definition of soul. Put up or shut up.
Not at all. I am simply pointing out the flaws in your position. An admission of ignorance is perfectly acceptable. I don’t believe I need to buy what you are selling just because I don’t have anything I wish to sell you…
I repeat, I don’t need to demonstrate the existence of souls to falsify your argument.
My point was that simply because Occam’s razor tell sus to make a specific choice, that establishes nothing other than that Occam’s razor told us to make that choice. That has transparently been my point all along.
From my original post on this topic’ “I acknowledge your point, However Occam’s razor is not an argument, simply a statement of why you believe as you do.’
What led you to believe that anything else was ever my point.
You on the other hand, rather than simply either acknowledging or ignoring this point, began constructing an argument which has since gone nowhere.
So now you are trying the stadard weasel technique. You claim that dogs have no hair. I show that numerous dogs have no hair and now you are sayong “Oh I didn’t mean that dog, just this one particular dog’.
By making the blanket assertion that it makes no sense you asserting that it makes no sense to anyone.
I agree wholeheartedly. You didn’t say ‘This idea is not well-defined and logically coherent’’, you said ‘This idea “makes sense” to people’. You agree that they are not the same thing. You agree that the idea makes sense to people. Why not just admit that your assertion that the soul makes no sense to people was incorrect.
Again I agree wholeheartedly. Thus you might be able to claim it has little merit, but you would be incorrect to say that it makes no sense to people.
Of course it’s analogous.
Yet you have failed to produce any other reason for your assertion that it makes no sense to anyone. What exactly is that assertion based on, given that it flies on the face of the facts.
It does help us. I helps us by showing that your line of reasoning is inherently flawed. Whether it helps beyond that is annoyer unrelated chapter.
No, but you can by saying “Your position is based on assertions that are demonstrably false” and leaving it at that. I do not need to accept Lamarkian evolution just because I can’t produce a viable alternative. I can simply falsify that hypothesis and be done with. This is what I have done.
It’s relevant because your argument rest on an assertion that such is the case. Your argument relies on your assertion that demonstrating an argument nonsensical demonstrates the conclusion to be nonsensical. Since we have now established that such an assertion is invalid, we can dismiss any argument stemming from it.
OK then.
“The spiritual nature of humans, regarded as immortal, separable from the body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state.”
Indeed I do.
a. A statement conveying fundamental character.
b. A statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, or term, as in a dictionary entry.
The act or process of stating a precise meaning or significance; formulation of a meaning.
Again, you are weaselling away from your assertion. You asserted that no one had ever defined a soul. I proved that you were wrong when you made that statement. Now you have squirmed into a new position that “it’s an absence of ‘non vague’ defintions”. I am not going to play this game where you make a baseless assertion, I falsify it and then you ask for more information which you can also ignore when it falsifies your position.
Admit that your assertion that no one had ever defined a soul was wrong, and/or withdraw the assertion, and I might do as you ask.
Put up or shut up.
And you still haven’t answered my question Blowero. Are you saying that, since OED definitions don’t contain descriptions of materials and lists of function that he OED does not in fact contain any definitions? If yo do not agree with this, then how can it be so, given that you have asserted that definitions must contain descriptions of materials and lists of function.
The trouble is I think that you make blanket assertions in an attempt to portray your position as much stronger than it is. When I prove that these assertions are erroneous at best, you attempt to shift the burden of proof to me in the hopes that if you can weaken the positions I hold, that will somehow make your position as strong as you pretend it is.
I care little what you believe. I’m not selling anything. But in GD if you pretend that your position is stronger than it is, then you can expect someone to point out the flaws. This is what am doing.
I’m going to jump in here because . . . well . . . I’m bored
Well then, answer me this: Do you believe that applying Occam’s Razor to concepts is useful? Do you believe that it often yields the correct choice?
You earlier stated “You conced that Occam’s Rzaor is just a guid based on exprerience a heuristic argument as you put it. I have other guides based on experience, and they lead me to another conclusion.” I would be interested in knowing what heuristic argument you are using in this case.
I could almost accept this rebuttal, if not for the fact that you already said, “Sense is Yo,’ I assume, meant to say that it makes no sense to you. Well that’s fair enough.” See, you’ve already accepted blowero’s correction to his position, so to continue to harp on now is a very poor debating tactic.
<snip a lot of Blake arguing that blowero can’t say that “the argument doesn’t make sense to anyone” after Blake has already accepted that that is not what blowero meant>
Oops, looks like I missed one. Blake, you’ve already admitted that this is not what blowero was asserting. Are you going to take back what you said earlier? What would be the point? You know that what you are asserting that blowero meant is not what he actually meant.
The only thing that can come from your backpeddling is for blowero to restate that he did not intend to say what you are implying. Then you’ll say, “okay, I can accept that”. Then, in another couple of posts, you’ll be right back to arguing this same exact misunderstanding.
Is that where this is headed?
I don’t think that is what blowero was arguing. I think he meant that if an argument is nonsensical, then the conclusion has not been shown to be valid. The conclusion of a nonsensical argument is no better than a guess. Guesses can end up being correct, but they’re useless until such time that they are shown to be correct.
I have no intention of actually getting into the middle of your main arguments with blowero, because only he can answer for his own reasoning. I just felt that the above points should be addressed.
Blake’s whole argument is one big fabulous disaster!It is like someone set off a nonsense grenade and we are now all covered in silly string!It could take eons to sort it all out!
I have never admitted this. I said that I assumed this is not what he was asserting, and asked if my assumption was correct. Blowero’s response: No it is a correct assumption. He was standing by his assertion that it made sense to no one, and on the grounds that “We have spent this whole thread explaining why it’s nonsensical”
I have no idea where you got the dea that Blowero has ever conceded that his asssertion that it makes no sense to anyone is false, or that I have ‘admitted’ this.
If he will simply make that admission then I will certainly acknowledge that and point out how his entire argument is abased on this and other logical fallacies and hence can be disregarded.
Well, not being able to read minds I can only base my concept of what he was arguing on what he actually said during the argument: “The soul model of consciousness does not make more sense. In fact, it makes no sense at all” “We have spent this whole thread explaining why it’s nonsensical”. He hs not been argung thta tye arguments are nonsensical and the conclusions invalid. he has been explicitely aguing that the conclusion makes no sense at all to anyone.
If he means that the arguments are nonsensical then he should state so claerly and retract those statements the concept is nonsensical, and that he has demonstarted that it s nonsensical. I am sure that you know him better than I, and can understand the workings of his mind. I am forced to argue against what he has said, and I have done so.
And thank you for that ad mominen statement GodlessSkeptic. It really adds a lot to the debate. :rolleyes:
Now how about adressing the strawman you tried to utilise above?
Not to interrupt, but it did occur to me re: the IPU, I wonder if you can prove that New Jersey (its alleged location) exists? And I do mean within the framework of this argument format, wherein “I’ve been there” doesn’t count because it’s anecdotal, and “well look on a map” doesn’t count because I don’t believe in that mapmaker (as many people don’t believe in the Bible).
I don’t mean to be snotty or anything, I’m just curious if anything’s provable within those parameters, or if everything can be considered either anecdotal or not truly valid due to source material that one refuses to acknowledge. Seems like this territory has probably been covered before, figured I might as well ask
Actually, on a second examination, it appears that we are both wrong. Blowero actually said:
So blowero is, at the very least, not asserting that the soul does not makes sense to anyone, which is what you have been claiming that he said (although I agree that his wording prior to that statement was ambigious).
It seems that his position is not that souls in general make no sense, but that the concept of a soul as presented in this thread makes no sense, it having been (up until that point, at least, poorly defined).
Well, the above quote takes care of blowero not asserting that it made no sense to anyone. As for your admission, you said:
That would appear to me to imply that, should blowero clarify that he didn’t mean that the soul makes no sense to anyone, that you could accept that.
However, it now appears that you and he are using different notions of what “makes sense” means, and that’s probably where the main confusion is coming from.
It appears to me that he has intended to say that the concept of the soul as presented in this argument made no sense to him, and thus it was pointless to attempt to come to any conclusion. But I could be wrong. I won’t attempt to put words in his mouth.
Not at all. I think I just read his posts with a slightly different interpretation.
No it doesn’t. He has still has not conceded that he made the assertion that belief in a soul makes no sense. In fact quite the opposite, he says that he is reasonably certain that he never made any such assertion. I have pointed out that he did assert that it makes no sense. I have also pointed out that saying that he only meant it makes no sense to some people is weaseling, and akin to saying that dogs have no hair, and then shifting position to ‘oh I only meant this particular dog.
I have no problem with a concept not making any sense to him. I said this at the outset. But he cannot assert that it makes no sense at all without me proving the assertion to be untrue.
That’s correct. However this is not a reference to me admitting that such is not what he was asserting. That is what you clamed. Far from me admitting that this is what he was asserting, I am making an assumption and working form that. Blowero later went on to claim that this assumption is flawed, and that he did in fact mean that it makes no sense and has spent the entire thread proving same.
So I say again:
Cite.
I have never admitted that this is not what blowero was asserting. I said that I assumed this is not what he was asserting, and asked if my assumption was correct. Blowero’s response: No it is a correct assumption. He was standing by his assertion that it made sense to no one, and on the grounds that "We have spent this whole thread explaining why it’s nonsensical.
Can you cite evidence that I ever admitted that this is not what blowero was asserting?
If that is the case then why did he respond to my assumption that this is indeed what he meant with “We have spent this whole thread explaining why it’s nonsensical" and “That’s not a good analogy. Quantum physics is clearly based on empirical experiments,……Tell me what analogous empirical experimentation has been done regarding souls.”
The trouble is that he made a poorly worded baseless assertion. I pointed this out. Instead of just confirming my assumption he attempted to defend it. Now he is attempting to weasel away from it all together by saying “Oh when I said dogs have no hair, I didn’t mean most dogs, I only meant my dog. Sure you pointed out that I should have said my dog has no hair, but I responded that there was no experimental evidence that dogs have hair.”
Weaseling. Pure and simple. I am asking him to come straight out and say the soul does make sense to some people. Simply saying that he never said any such thing is insufficient because he did say it, and his position is built upon it. If he admits that the soul does make sense to some people, then we can start analysing the real strength of his position, rather than being forced to work under erroneous assumptions of strength.
As I have said, he make assertions that imply a strength that his position just does not have.
I try hard not to interpret them at all. I take them at face value. If he says ‘the soul concept makes no sense’ I take that at face value, just a I would if someone says ‘the concept of dogs having hair makes no sense’.
I feel like I’m going in circles here, and I’m not even sure who’s fault that is.
Blowero stated that he never made the assertion that “the soul makes no sense to anyone”. In fact, here’s the quote:
He never claimed not to have asserted that belief in a soul makes no sense. He claimed not to have asserted that it makes no sense to anyone.
And he agreed with you, per the above quote. He just seems to be disagreeing as to what “makes no sense”, as he used it, means.
I don’t think that’s a very good analogy. Dogs being hairless or not is easilly verified by empirical evidence. Plus, the concept of “a hairless dog” is reasonably well defined as to cause no confusion.
What I gathered from blowero’s posts was that he didn’t believe that the concept of a soul was well defined enough, that the concept “didn’t make sense” due to its lack of clarity.
Again, I don’t mean to put words in blowero’s mouth, nor do I plan to do his debating for him. I’m simply attempting to clarify the misunderstanding that is causing the current debate to go around in circles.
I think you’re losing a lot of context in regards to that particular quote. You’ve quoted it so many times that I honestly think you forgot what the “it” in “We have spent this whole thread explaining why it’s nonsensical” was in reference to. In fact, I had to go back two pages into the thread to find it. Specifically, “it” is “the soul model of consciousness”. Calling the soul model of consciousness nonsensical is not the same thing as calling the soul nonsensical.
And I have to agree with him. Every shred of empirical evidence we have points to the consciosness as being a function of the physical brain, so positing something (call it a soul, or anything else) that is both the seat of consciousness and physically undectable makes little sense.
At the end of the day, I think that you and blowero could have a reasonable debate if you chose to start over by redefining both your positions as well as any disputed terminology you might be using. Lacking that, I don’t see how this debate can do anything but spiral into nitpicking of minor details.
Okay I want you and Blake to pay close attention here.There are two types of existential claims :ordinary and extraordinary.ordinary claims are claims which CAN be supported adequately by anecdotal evidence because the claims themselves conform to existing knowledge based on observation and experiment.These claims violate no known laws of nature or physics and accepting them to be true will not have dire consequences to our reality…even if the claims turned out to be false. Extraordinary claims on the other hand are an entirely different animal.These are claism which do NOT conform with observation or existing agreed upon knowledge.These are claism which, by and large if found to be true would likely unravel most of what we know from thousands of years of scientific study.These claims routinely viloate natural laws, are usually presuppositional and are further supported by equally fallacious argument and evidence.Anecdotal evidence is not enough to support extraordinary claims.
“New Jersey exists” is an Ordinary claim, even for those who have never been there.It is similar to “I have a tree in my backyard” (or more like “my backyard is a forest”).One does not have to invoke mysteries of quantum mechanics to posit that the city of New Jersey exists.
“God exists” is an extraordinary claim because in order for God to exist we have to assume that nearly all knowledge we have obtained…all past observations…all tests and experiments must be untrue.If God does in fact exist then virtually all knowledge we have of every subject you can think of is in serious question(the “no boundries” or “anything is possible” model of reality).Anecdotal evidence is not enough to support this claim because, following Occam’s razor, the more rational explanation for peoples’ belief in God is not that he exists but rather that the human belief machanism is at work and there is a good bit of self deception and indoctrination going on.
You will find a controlled scientific study of near death experiences.
“Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest: a prospective study in the Netherlands by Doctors Pim van Lommel, Ruud van Wees, Vincent Meyers, Ingrid Elfferich.”
In the above study you will find a near death experience that surprised the doctor (P. van Lommel) very much, it was the one about false teeth. It confirmed the “information while dead,” part of NDEs.
P. van Lommel went on to say: “Several theories have been proposed to explain NDE. We did not show that psychological, neurophysiological, or physiological factors caused these experiences after cardiac arrest.”
If not any of these then what?
The Doctor also talked about the Pam Reynolds surgery. http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html
She was “dead” for approximately two hours, the blood drained from her head, and when she was brought back to life, she described the details of her surgery.
Since this study, funding and permission has been made available for a much larger study, and it is now in progress. It is due in about two years.
Science will only be able to eliminate the physical factor. Then if NDES are not caused by anything physical (the body) they must be considered spiritual. That’s the way I see it.
The only way we can deal with life is through personal experience. We can tell others about our experiences, but we can’t prove them. We can’t even prove we had toast for breakfast. Thousands of individuals have recorded their NDEs, while they are all unique in some aspects, other aspects are the same.
In order to understand NDEs, I believe it is necessary to read several hundred of them. After that, you will see the thread of logic and truth all contain. http://www.ndeweb.com/board00.htm
NDEers welcome scientific research into the experiences, I have never known a researcher to come away not believing in the reality of the experience.
Remember that some followers of science and/or religion have vested interests, and depend on their beliefs to earn their living. Many will never accept NDEs, but that is ok, the information I write is for those still seeking and learning.
Yeah, I agree. I think the only thing to do at this point is just step away. I think our friend Blake is being a little disingenous in his debating style. Taking things out of context; adding seemingly innocuous words to quotes that completely change the meaning; continuing to present a strawman when I have clarified what I meant. What’s more, he doesn’t really seem interested in presenting any arguments for his side of the debate; only in trying to tear down other people’s arguments. And I certainly don’t have the energy to wade through this whole mess of a thread to find all my original arguments that Blake has twisted.
Blake, I’ve enjoyed your contributions, but I have no interest in getting embroiled in a semantic contest on the level of “what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”
And I see Lekatt is still playing that one note he knows on his harp.:rolleyes:
Yeah, I have torn this so-called study to shreds on like three occasions now…the infamous “Netherlands study”.If you read the article YOURSELF you will see there are a number of problems with the study and no, it did not demonstrate anything of the kind under proper controls(otherwise they would have called the JREF first).I will refresh my memory on the article by visiting the link and then give you a detailed blow-by-blow.
**
LOL…yeah, the patient wakes up(IIRC) and asks the first nurse he sees “where are my teeth?” and the NDE proponents automatically assume he asked THAT nurse specifical;ly because he saw her take the teeth in an outof body experience.Give me a friggin’ break!
**
The most recent (legitimate)research points to a specific area of the brain that is responsible for generating “mystical experiences” and also produces the strange dream-like experiences experienced by jet pilots when they exceed a certain number of G’s.Ironically, the initial discovery of this knowledge was made by Andrew Newberg, a self-proclaimed “neurotheologist” who was trying to show that the spiritual(souls etc.) was valid and instead showed just the opposite.
**
IIRC, this was another uncontrolled farce of a study.
**
How convenient.Like many a SYlvia Browne prediction we will have to wait two years to find out it is bunk, by which time everyone will have forgotten all about it.
Wrong.For one thing science is dangerously close right now to blowing the lid off the whole NDE/OBE as spiritual experience claim.Second, even if they were by some miracle able to reverse this trend ansd show that physiological/psychological factors are not sufficient to explain the claims, it would simply mean that we don’t know yet…not that YOUR claim is by default the right explanation.
[/b
GODDAMIT if I have to repeat the bit about ordinary vs. extraordinary claims one more time…READ the post above!
**
Thousands have also claimed to have seen or been abducted by aliens which all look roughly the same(bulbous head w/large pupiless black eyes etc.) and we can say with some degree of certainty that aliens visiting this planet at all in some type of spacecraft is as close to impossible as we can get.
**
I have done just that and I see nothing but people with a desperate need to believe in the spiritual and especially the afterlife, who will let their belief mechanisms run willy-nilly without any peasky rationality to get in the way.
**
Then you do not know any researchers to speak of.This goes entirely against scientific methodology to indulge in such presuppositions and erroneous conclusions.It is funny that amongst NAS scientists(the cream of the crop as it were) the number of them who feel these claims of NDE’ers and OBE’ers are valid is ridiculously low(something like 0.005% or something).
That is a load of BS.You guiys get angry when science does not support your silly claims and this accusation comes out everytime:“Oh they are intentionally trying to avoid or cover up the evidence of NDEs/psychics/paranormal etc. because of their ‘vested interests’!”.
Probably should have commented on the Andrew Newberg, “God Spot” in the brain. When I read this some time ago there was only one sample in the study. Hardly anything to crow about, if I am wrong please show the cites on this so I can read them.
There have been attempts for over a hundred years to find something in the brain, such as stored memory, thoughts, or areas where thinking can be observed. Nothing physical has ever been found stored in the brain that concerns "mind, soul, spirit, psyche, etc.
There are places that appear to be the areas of various functions of the body, I see the “God Spot” as one of these areas. While stimulating an area may make the arm or leg move, or even allow a transcendent experience, that does not explain what causes the movement or experience in reality. Nothing there but brain cells that look alike. Transcendent experiences can also be caused by certain drugs. There is a good explanation of why this happens on my web site in the FAQ section. ndeweb.com
My personal opinion is that unless science finds biological evidence of memory, thought, etc. It is not going to prove that man is just so many pounds of meat.
I know man is spiritual, only because I have experienced it.
