Scientists Find Hints for the Immortality of the Soul

[West]

Yeah, that's a roger.
Try looking up the 'logical fallacy' that is 'respect for authority.' You're using the reputation of the scientists as support for their claims. It's textbook.

Now you're really making me laugh.

I'll say it again. I don't support their claims and didnt try to. Where's the logical fallacy there. You're inventing stuff now.

Also anyone who knows me knows I have zero respect for authority.

 

[Perspicuo]

Yeah, that's a roger.
Try looking up the 'logical fallacy' that is 'respect for authority.' You're using the reputation of the scientists as support for their claims. It's textbook.

Now you're really making me laugh.

I'll say it again. I don't support their claims and didnt try to. Where's the logical fallacy there. You're inventing stuff now.

Also anyone who knows me knows I have zero respect for authority.

Except where an "eminent scientist" states something and then they've got you. Their supposed "emience" wins you to their side versus the vast majority of scientists.

 

[dystopian]

Why would I show evidence for the views expressed? They are not my views.

Let's see;

1) You posted the op linking to the article containing the views.
2) People expressed skepticism, suggesting this thread belongs in Pseudoscience.
3) You dissented, arguing that these are respectable scientists: thereby assigning value to the ones expressing the views.
4) People expressed more skepticism.
5) You dissented, stating the article was worthwhile; thereby assigning value to the views expressed therewithin.
6) People expressed still more skepticism.
7) You again dissented, now claiming that the scientists hold these views out of necessity, because of their research; and then stated that the *only* reason to dismiss these views is we know something these scientists do not: thereby implicitly stating a certain level of agreement with the views themselves. Either you know something the scientists don't, and thus according to you have reason to dismiss them, or you don't. You can not feign neutrality as to the views themselves, because you're the one who originally put them forth on this forum for discussion, and have expended significant effort to argue with anyone expressing skepticism of them)

Why would you show evidence of the views expressed? Because whenever someone questions the views, you demand they provide evidence for why those views are false.

You haven't even read the thread, I have said all along that these physicists may or may not be right. I'm not bothered either way.

IF that were true you wouldn't have posted the op, and everything since then. Who are you trying to fool here? Us? Or yourself?

You relentlessly ask for arguments from authority

Asking for peer reviewed studies is not an asking for an argument from authority.

and when I give you the details of the physicists, you say I am arguing from authority!

Because you are. An argument from authority happens when someone's argument is essentially: "What this person is saying is true/believable, because of who he is."; which is what you've been doing. You've been consistently telling us why we should take these views seriously because the people expressing them are eminent scientists. That's an argument from authority.

What other people have done, contrary to you, is asking for peer review *evidence*. Peer review is not an argument from authority because it's not saying "this is credible *because* of who the people claiming it are". It's saying; "This is credible because it has been examined by independent experts who are purely looking for flaws in the methodology but found none." If Stephen Hawking makes a claim, it doesn't matter that he's Stephen Hawking; that fact says nothing about about how likely his claim is. If Stephen Hawking makes a claim, and then presents it before his scientific peers who are all trying to tear his claim apart but fail to do so, then his claim is given more weight by virtue of the fact that other experts couldn't easily disprove it. That is what peer review is. It is not an argument from authority.

Also what is respect for authority? How on earth could you know who I respect?

Maybe by looking at who you refer to as "eminent".

 

[West]

But let's be honest, you think they're right. Don't try to present yourself as some sort of neutral party now.

I posted the article as I wanted to see how atheists would react to scientific opinion which is unsettling to their worldview, ie, immortality of the conciousness, as opposed to a scientific opinion which is not, such as dark matter.

1) This is not scientific opinion. Just because an opinion is voiced by a scientist, doesn't mean the opinion itself is scientific.

2) Why would the immortality of consciousness be unsettling to us? Quite the contrary; I would very much like to have an actual reason to believe in the immortality of my consciousness; I do not want to cease existing, so if there was actual objective reason to believe I won't then that would make very happy indeed.

The physicists who expressed these views are not crackpots, indeed somne of them are quite eminent.

1. Define eminent.
2. Establish the original source for the quotes, since it just looks like quote-mining at the moment.
3. Whether they're eminent or not is irrelevant; appealing to such a thing is what we call an argument from authority; a fallacy.

All I saw was a reaction much like I predicted, ie, the same as I would get if I said to a creationist the universe is billions of years old.

No, you saw no such thing. What you saw was people expressing skepticism and asking for something more than vague claims and quotemined blurbs. Pointing out (rightly so), that the claims in the article have not been scientifically vetted and do not in fact represent anything more than unsubstantiated opinion is *not* akin to a young earth creationist's reaction to scientific facts.

There was not one refutation based on the scientific method. Again much like a creationist.

Reversal of the burden of proof. He who makes the positive claim has the burden of proof. Furthermore, why would you expect us to refute vague statements that haven't been supported by actual arguments and evidence first? Exactly how are we supposed to refute something when there's nothing to refute? If you tell me you believe in an afterlife, I can't refute that. If you tell me you believe in an afterlife because 3+3 equals 7, then I have something to actually address and refute. All the quotes in the article show are vague statements without evidence or specific claims to address.

Braces_for_impact even posted a pic implying that he knows everything about quantum physics.

A picture that makes fun of your arguments does not imply that he thinks he knows everything about a given subject. It just implies that he thinks you're an idiot.

I have no doubt whatsoever that if the article had been about something else related to quantum physics there would not have been one refutation.

I have no doubt that you're wrong. Because of the nature of QM however, I can not say what about.

Who even has the knowledge to refute this?

So let's say, for the sake of argument, that nobody here has the necessary knowledge to refute claims regarding quantum mechanics. WHY exactly does that mean we're supposed to take these claims seriously? Do you lend credence to any and all claims regarding a subject you're not knowledgeable about? Would you believe someone telling you that you can run your car by pouring in sugar instead of oil just because you don't know how engines work?

This shows huge bias and closed mindedness.

Those words, I don't think they mean what you think they do. Expressing skepticism about vague claims that have no arguments/evidence in their favor is neither biased nor closedminded, even less so when said expression is followed by requests for actual evidence and arguments.

So much for free thought eh.

Again, I don't think that term means what you think it means.

You mention argument from authority and then ask for a peer review. Isn't that another argument from authority.

Asking for peer review is obviously not an argument from authority, and if you think that it is then you probably shouldn't be trying to argue anything relating to science.

Peer review ensures that a scientific hypothesis is in fact scientifically sound. The whole point of peer review is to present your claims before the merciless judge of science. Peer review lets the rest of us know that a scientific claim has been vetted by independent experts. It lets us know that true or false, it's good science; that it follows the scientific process and isn't so easy to knock down as to be pseudoscience. Asking for peer review isn't an argument from authority, it's asking for a willingness to put one's claims to the test. A person who is not willing to put his claims to the test, is a person whose claims aren't worth considering.

Unlike you, I don't need arguments from authority.

Yet you have done almost nothing but appeal to authority. According to you, we're supposed to take these claims seriously because they're supposedly made by "international" physicists (even though it looks like quotemining to the rest of us, so we're not even sure if these claims represent their actual views). That is the very definition of an argument from authority.

As skeptics, we do not find ourselves compelled to take the claims of anyone seriously based purely on such reasoning. Nor do we find the other argument you're making; that the claims have merit by virtue of the fact we can't provide evidence that they're wrong; particularly compelling either. As mentioned, that is a reversal of the burden of proof. We no more have to provide evidence that these claims are false than you have to provide evidence I have not created a time machine: you can not provide such evidence. At best, you can argue that my own evidence for its existence is lacking.

I don't need one or more scientists to tell me what to think.

Then why make mention of them at all? What's the point of the OP?

You also have not explained what is illogical and irrational about the continuance of consciousness,

Again, he doesn't have to. It's a reversal of the burden of proof.

Your cumbersome post was a good attempt to be smart but was really quite naive.

I do not care if these phyicists vews are true or not. I've said that previously.

I am not making an argument from an authority as I am not making an argument in favour of these views and never have.

Look through the entire thread and show me the argument I have made in favour of anything.

You however, being naive about non atheists, have literally invented your own argument from authority that is not even in the thread, purely because of your preconceived naive ideas that all religious people have a need for authority.

This shows that you are not a free thinker, although you don't even realise it.

And guess what, if I post a smiley now it means I think <edit>.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I am not making an argument from an authority as I am not making an argument in favour of these views and never have.

You criticize people for being skeptical about the article, and defended it with the reputation of the scientists quoted (maybe) in the article.
That is entirely an argument from authority.

Look through the entire thread and show me the argument I have made in favour of anything.

Dystopian enumerated them rather well.

You however, being naive about non atheists, have literally invented your own argument from authority that is not even in the thread, purely because of your preconceived naive ideas that all religious people have a need for authority.

The 'argument from authority' charge is based on your posting behavior, nothing to do with religious people.

This shows that you are not a free thinker, although you don't even realise it.

You really should stop using terms you don't understand.
It makes you look foolish.

 

[dystopian]

Your cumbersome post was a good attempt to be smart but was really quite naive.

Do you find it cumbersome when someone addresses your points individually as opposed to making a singular point you can address or ignore?

I do agree it was naive to think you might actually consider the arguments I put forth.

I do not care if these phyicists vews are true or not. I've said that previously.

However, as my post demonstrates, it doesn't really *matter* that you've stated such, because your pattern of behavior reveals that you very much *do* care.

I am not making an argument from an authority as I am not making an argument in favour of these views and never have.

As I demonstrated, you have in fact done exactly that. Arguing that these views are to be taken seriously by virtue of the fact they're made by eminent scientists (this IS an argument from authority even if you weren't trying to argue in favor of the views), claiming that we have no reason to dismiss the views. These are arguments in favor of the expressed views. It is plain for everyone to see that you do support these views to at least some extent, *and* that you have been arguing for them. It is also plain to see that the only reason you're trying to state you haven't and don't, is to maintain an illusionary 'neutrality'; which you hope (consciously or otherwise) presents yourself as the voice of reason; the rational middle road. Unfortunately for you, we see right through such simplistic tactics.

Look through the entire thread and show me the argument I have made in favour of anything.

I already did.

You however, being naive about non atheists,

I fail to see how I personally, or anyone else in this thread, has been 'naive' about anyone. I dare say that word doesn't mean what you think it does.

have literally invented your own argument from authority that is not even in the thread, purely because of your preconceived ideas that all religious people have a need for authority.

Wat.

Hang on hang on. I need to parse this.

I've "literally" invented my own argument from authority...

...which isn't even in the thread (then where the hell is this argument, and how do you know I've invented it if it's not in the thread?)...

...because I've an idea that all religious people have a need for authority? (When have I said this?)

This shows that you are not a free thinker, although you don't even realise it.

Wat.

Even if everything you'd said about me being naive about non-atheists (psst, we don't call them non-atheists, we call them theists)... how in the hell does that show me to not be a free thinker? A freethinker is someone who holds the position that truth is to be based on logic, reason, and empirical evidence. At no point has anyone in this thread; except yourself; deviated from this position.

And guess what, if I post a smiley now it means I think <edit>.

Good thing that us <edit>know the is not in fact a smiley but rather an emoticon similar in appearance to the classic smiley. If we didn't know that, one of us might either have meant actual offense, or taken it!

 

[Shadowy Man]

Who even has the knowledge to refute this?

What is there to refute?

Nothing scientific has been presented. Can you link to a paper that gives the quantum mechanical description of "the soul"? How do I diagonalize its Hamiltonian? What are the quantum properties of the soul? How do they commute with their other properties? How do I calculate the probability distribution to know if it exists outside of the body or after death of the body? I'm guessing that it can't be done analytically, so there must be some numerical simulations of it. Where are the papers that demonstrate these simulations and where are the papers that then compare the results of these simulations to empirical data?

If anyone is going to claim that "the soul" can be studied scientifically then they're going to have answer all of these questions. So, until these have been presented there's nothing to refute. Some scientist who only *feels* that there's a soul and it lives beyond their own body's life is not doing science.

This shows huge bias and closed mindedness.

I'm open-minded to the science. But first you have to show me the science.

 

[RavenSky]

The physicists who expressed these views...

You have failed thus far to demonstrate that the physicists actually "expressed the views.". As I noted previously, the first quote in the article you posted could not be traced back to its original source. Since you are claiming that "the physicists" said this and believe that, you need to provide the original sourced to back up your claims.

You don't get to pontificate or point fingers until you have supported - with original sources - your claims.

 

[RavenSky]

I mentioned these physicists as these are their views and they are coming from people who has actually studied the subject matter.

Until you actually provide the original sources, you don't get to claim the portion I've struck from your post.

 

[Malintent]

Peez

Its nothing to do with an argument from authority. I'm saying I just don't dismiss their views like you do.

It seems clear that materialism (meaning philosophical materialism) is your religion and you dismiss anything outside of that. That is your right, as it is the right of creationists but it puts you in the same camp as them. It is also the opposite of free thought.

A physicist has said that it is necessary that consciousness has a quantum state. I am not saying he is right or wrong but you are without being able to provide evidence of what is wrong.

What is wrong is that there is no reason to believe anything asserted. That is you attempting to move the burdon of proof from the one asserting to the one rejecting.

Shall we all consider (and maybe put to a democratic vote) the fact that you owe me one million dollars? Of course, the first 100 people that will witness that truth for me will receive an eternal afterlife (and $1,000 cash upon payment of the million dollar debt that you owe me).

So... will you admit this asserted truth and pay me, or will you illogically and irrationally reject out of hand this fact?

 

[Peez]

West has rather quickly earned 'not worth responding to' status. Perhaps in a few years he will be vindicated by the scientific community, and will return here triumphantly to laugh at our close-minded foolishness.

Perhaps not.

Peez

 

[West]

Do you find it cumbersome when someone addresses your points individually as opposed to making a singular point you can address or ignore?

I do agree it was naive to think you might actually consider the arguments I put forth.

I do not care if these phyicists vews are true or not. I've said that previously.

However, as my post demonstrates, it doesn't really *matter* that you've stated such, because your pattern of behavior reveals that you very much *do* care.

I am not making an argument from an authority as I am not making an argument in favour of these views and never have.

As I demonstrated, you have in fact done exactly that. Arguing that these views are to be taken seriously by virtue of the fact they're made by eminent scientists (this IS an argument from authority even if you weren't trying to argue in favor of the views), claiming that we have no reason to dismiss the views. These are arguments in favor of the expressed views. It is plain for everyone to see that you do support these views to at least some extent, *and* that you have been arguing for them. It is also plain to see that the only reason you're trying to state you haven't and don't, is to maintain an illusionary 'neutrality'; which you hope (consciously or otherwise) presents yourself as the voice of reason; the rational middle road. Unfortunately for you, we see right through such simplistic tactics.

Look through the entire thread and show me the argument I have made in favour of anything.

I already did.

You however, being naive about non atheists,

I fail to see how I personally, or anyone else in this thread, has been 'naive' about anyone. I dare say that word doesn't mean what you think it does.

have literally invented your own argument from authority that is not even in the thread, purely because of your preconceived ideas that all religious people have a need for authority.

Wat.

Hang on hang on. I need to parse this.

I've "literally" invented my own argument from authority...

...which isn't even in the thread (then where the hell is this argument, and how do you know I've invented it if it's not in the thread?)...

...because I've an idea that all religious people have a need for authority? (When have I said this?)

This shows that you are not a free thinker, although you don't even realise it.

Wat.

Even if everything you'd said about me being naive about non-atheists (psst, we don't call them non-atheists, we call them theists)... how in the hell does that show me to not be a free thinker? A freethinker is someone who holds the position that truth is to be based on logic, reason, and empirical evidence. At no point has anyone in this thread; except yourself; deviated from this position.

And guess what, if I post a smiley now it means I think <edit>

Good thing that us <edit> know the is not in fact a smiley but rather an emoticon similar in appearance to the classic smiley. If we didn't know that, one of us might either have meant actual offense, or taken it!

You claim that you can read my mind by saying I am arguing for these views and yet you have shown no evidence whatsoever to prove that. OH how ironic.

You provided no evidence from the thread of anything I have written to support your view, you merely claim that you can somehow tell that I "very much *do* care".

Do you realise that in the light of what we have been discussing on the thread, ie, that evidence for things is required, that this makes you look like a complete and utter <edit>.

And indeed also a <edit>

Provide a quote from the thread that shows that I support the physicists views. If you cant then owe it to everyone to be quiet.

It is very simplistic of you to claim that you can somehow tell or guess what I am thinking. To be honest, arguing with you is like arguing with a creationist, they say things like "I can tell" or "I just know" when discussing these things as well.

It is for this reason that I am not even going to bother replying to your posts anymore as I find you quite irritating and simplistic.

Any further posts from you will be ignored.

Bye Bye

 

[West]

You criticize people for being skeptical about the article, and defended it with the reputation of the scientists quoted (maybe) in the article.
That is entirely an argument from authority.

Look through the entire thread and show me the argument I have made in favour of anything.

Dystopian enumerated them rather well.

You however, being naive about non atheists, have literally invented your own argument from authority that is not even in the thread, purely because of your preconceived naive ideas that all religious people have a need for authority.

The 'argument from authority' charge is based on your posting behavior, nothing to do with religious people.

This shows that you are not a free thinker, although you don't even realise it.

You really should stop using terms you don't understand.
It makes you look foolish.

Give me your definition of free thought and I'll explain to you how you don't meet it.

 

[West]

West has rather quickly earned 'not worth responding to' status. Perhaps in a few years he will be vindicated by the scientific community, and will return here triumphantly to laugh at our close-minded foolishness.

Perhaps not.

Peez

Funny that because the last post you made to me, I didnt reply to.

Nice one Peez.

I can't stop LOL.

 

[Malintent]

Do you intend to pay me the million dollars you owe me or not, West? Why or why not? If you think not, then is it because you just wish to be evil, or some other reason?

 

[dystopian]

You claim that you can read my mind by saying I am arguing for these views and yet you have shown no evidence whatsoever to prove that. OH how ironic.

You provided no evidence from the thread of anything I have written to support your view, you merely claim that you can somehow tell that I "very much *do* care".

Actually, I *did* provide evidence in the form of good solid reasoning. Reasoning you have not addressed.

Do you realise that in the light of what we have been discussing on the thread, ie, that evidence for things is required, that this makes you look like a complete and utter<edit>.

I'm pretty sure that the only person who thinks I look like that here is you. Perhaps if you'd present your perception for peer review, I might be inclined to take it more seriously.

And indeed also a <edit>.

Counter question: Do *you* not realize that you've established the precedent that all one has to do is make a claim, and then *other* people have to provide evidence its wrong? Now personally, and I'm confident most people here would agree with me, I think I presented compelling evidence for the claim. However, according to your own established criteria I really don't have to. I made a claim about your views, now it's up to you to disprove them. And no, in this case simply stating that these are not your views doesn't cut it, because as I argued, the only plausible reason you're trying to deny that the views in the OP matter to you is in order to maintain the illusion of neutrality; an illusion necessary to do what you're really here to do; namely to rage against the mean skeptics and atheists who've made you feel bad about something or another in the past and whom you think can be made to feel bad by arguing that they're just as bad as the creationists. In other words, to disprove my claims regarding your views, you'd first need to prove that these are not your motivations... and I don't see it as very likely that you're capable of doing that.

Do you realize that by demanding I present evidence in support of a claim, *you* are being hypocritical?

Provide a quote from the thread that shows that I support the physicists views. If you cant then owe it to everyone to be quiet.

Surely you're aware that people can hold views that they do not explicitly state; or even that they explicitly claim they do not hold? I already outlined my reasons. Failing to find a direct quote does nothing to undermine those reasons.

It is very simplistic of you to claim that you can somehow tell or guess what I am thinking.

I don't think you understand what the word 'simplistic' means. Now you MIGHT argue that it is arrogant of me to claim I can tell or guess what you're thinking; you'd be wrong, but at least it'd make sense to use that word in such a sentence. But the term 'simplistic' doesn't apply here.

To be honest, arguing with you is like arguing with a creationist, they say things like "I can tell" or "I just know" when discussing these things as well.

You know who else uses terms like "I can tell"? International physicists. If they couldn't tell anything from their observations, we wouldn't be communicating our thoughts across the planet right now, would we?

It is for this reason that I am not even going to bother replying to your posts anymore as I find you quite irritating and simplistic.

How very much like a creationist

They have a tendency to get annoyed and upset to the point of ignoring me too, when I keep poking holes in what they're saying.

Any further posts from you will be ignored.

Do you promise?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Ghosts and hauntings, even in the ghost story here, are traditionally related to strong emotions. Suicide, murder, traumatic death, tax forms, gross injustice, anger. The old lady that haunted my home growing up died over a long period of painful cancer and left a bitter ghost.

And even by the most generous accounts, they don't seem to last more than 400 years.

If paranormal events are evidence for immortal souls, wouldn't they include a lot more people that just nodded off after Thanksgiving dinner or died peacefully, with no regrets? OR wouldn't we have a lot of ghosts running around speaking Latin or Etruscan or cave-man?

It'd be easier to see this 'evidence' as showing that something, maybe at a quantum level, records our emotions and holds them for a while, perceived by others as under certain conditions. calling this evidence for souls and their immortality is defintely better as pseudoscience.

Eddie Izzard mentioned that it always seemed homes were haunted, but not the shrubs around them.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Give me your definition of free thought and I'll explain to you how you don't meet it.

That just seems a teensy bit irrational. Whatever definition i give, you're going to find that I don't meet it.
Sounds like you may have something to prove.

I decline to give you a straight line, here.

I'd rather see you respond to my observation about how you misunderstood what the article is saying the scientist said about an afterlife being a necessity.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I don't think you understand what the word 'simplistic' means.

Add that to the list...

 

[braces_for_impact]

These physicists might be right or they might be wrong.

I posted the article as I wanted to see how atheists would react to scientific opinion which is unsettling to their worldview, ie, immortality of the conciousness, as opposed to a scientific opinion which is not, such as dark matter.

The physicists who expressed these views are not crackpots, indeed somne of them are quite eminent.

All I saw was a reaction much like I predicted, ie, the same as I would get if I said to a creationist the universe is billions of years old.

There was not one refutation based on the scientific method. Again much like a creationist.

Braces_for_impact even posted a pic implying that he knows everything about quantum physics.

I have no doubt whatsoever that if the article had been about something else related to quantum physics there would not have been one refutation.

Who even has the knowledge to refute this?

This shows huge bias and closed mindedness.

So much for free thought eh.

Wow, so now we're just your little lab rats stuck in your maze. You were just running a little experiment, with no preconceptions about the outcome eh? Wow, you must be so inquisitive. So smart, so ahead of the curve. Why, who could refute such a well thought out and exhaustive study such as this clever one you have devised, to test what all atheists think and how they all react?

I remember I created such a study once. I found an enlightened and scholarly article claiming that god was made of quantum farts born upon the vibrational synergistic wind in a bicycle shop in Cairo. I posted it to a small bible study yahoo chat room containing 5 people. One called my article bullshit; the nerve to think he thought he knew everything of particle physics! I made no "claims", acted smug, and and absconded with my data in hand. Ah the good 'ol days.

I'm glad you liked my picture. I kinda collect them as a bit of a hobby. Here's another in my collection: