Belief in the Afterlife

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by ufology

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Appeal to authority.

Ironic ... the position of the scientific skeptic is an appeal to sceince as an authority ... so are you saying science doesn't count now either?

Science does. Sceince, not so much.

I think you're doing far too much sceince.

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by ufology

Paul, if you want to backtrack, then backtrack all the way. This entire segment of discussion has everything to do with my first post positing the position that an afterlife is possible and your rebuttal with the skeptic in the video you posted. Based on his construct of an afterlife, he makes sense. However his rationale doesn't apply to my position and therefore does nothing to nullify it. Can we agree on that much at least?

Yes, tentatively. Let me think a little longer, I may be able to poke a hole in it. If I can't, then we're good.

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by ufology

Ironic ... the position of the scientific skeptic is an appeal to sceince as an authority ... so are you saying science doesn't count now either?

Folo, this is a major misunderstanding of the appeal to authority. If you want more info about this, let me know.

[ufology]

Originally Posted by Paul2

Folo, this is a major misunderstanding of the appeal to authority. If you want more info about this, let me know.

I understand the so-called appeal to authority so-called fallacy just fine. I presented a viewpoint and found an independent source with scientific credentials who is studying the same viewpoint and I used it as a reference, not to prove the theory itself is correct, but to prove that some scientific minds take it seriously. Therefore no "appeal to authority" has taken place. The skeptics however constantly appeal to the "authority" of some scientific figure or another, incorrectly assuming that whatever they say must be correct simply because ... well ... it's "science" ... which was the point I was trying to make.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by ufology

Originally Posted by Paul2

Folo, this is a major misunderstanding of the appeal to authority. If you want more info about this, let me know.

I understand the so-called appeal to authority so-called fallacy just fine.

You should have stopped there and hoped for the best rather than blundering on into a perfect demonstration of the truth of Paul's words.

Originally Posted by ufology

I presented a viewpoint and found an independent source with scientific credentials who is studying the same viewpoint and I used it as a reference, not to prove the theory itself is correct, but to prove that some scientific minds take it seriously. Therefore no "appeal to authority" has taken place.

Blah . . . blah . . . blah.

That is exactly what an Appeal to Authority is, but in any case you're not even talking about the same post to which Paul's comment was made in response, so you've got Buckley's of being right.

This is what you said:

Originally Posted by ufology

Ironic ... the position of the scientific skeptic is an appeal to sceince as an authority ... so are you saying science doesn't count now either?

And it is, as Paul said, demonstrative of a major misunderstanding of the Appeal to Authority fallacy.

Invoking actual scientific explanations for things is not the same as invoking the name of a scientist.

And, as I've already mentioned, spelling 'science' wrong in the middle of an attempt to point out what you incorrectly identify as the irony of someone else's post is a deliciously epic fail.

Do you need help with installing a spell checker?

Originally Posted by ufology

The skeptics however constantly appeal to the "authority" of some scientific figure or another, incorrectly assuming that whatever they say must be correct simply because ... well ... it's "science" ...

This is untrue. Your use of scare quotes indicates that you probably knew this when you were typing it.

As is your wont, you are conflating 'science' with 'scientist' and hoping that nobody notices.

As if.

Originally Posted by ufology

. . . which was the point I was trying to make.

Even if you'd succeeded in making your point, which you haven't, you'd still be wrong.

[Resume]

Originally Posted by ufology

... and as I've mentioned before, this would enable the possibility of an afterlife.

You can mention it all you like. That's a bit different from demonstrating it; so far all you've demonstrated is a weak supporting argument.

[EHocking]

Originally Posted by ufology

I understand the so-called appeal to authority so-called fallacy just fine. I presented a viewpoint and found an independent source with scientific credentials who is studying the same viewpoint and I used it as a reference, not to prove the theory itself is correct, but to prove that some scientific minds take it seriously. Therefore no "appeal to authority" has taken place. The skeptics however constantly appeal to the "authority" of some scientific figure or another, incorrectly assuming that whatever they say must be correct simply because ... well ... it's "science" ... which was the point I was trying to make.

Rredefinition of science and/or appeal to authority in 5, 4, 3, 2....

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by ufology

I understand the so-called appeal to authority so-called fallacy just fine.

I think you've (what I call) 'demonstrated' that your (so called) 'understanding' of the so-called appeal to authority so-called fallacy is not as (shall we call it) 'well rounded' as you think it is.

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by ufology

Ironic ... the position of the scientific skeptic is an appeal to sceince as an authority

Evidence? I see skeptics

1. using the procedures and checks of science,
2. citing scientific studies, sometimes by name of author,
3. using a shorthand for the above ("Einstein showed that . . . .")
but no
4. saying a claim is demonstrated because a scientist says so.

If you can cite an example, I might actually agree with you that it is an appeal to authority. But then, you'd have to show that there are many more of those.

You've got a long way to go.

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by ufology

Well ... being more than the sum of our individual parts is sort of a mystical belief.

It might be, but that’s not what I was trying to say. I'm not ascribing a mystical portion of "me" to the consciousness. Just stating what you haven't considered in your "computational model".

Quote:

Not that I don't agree that the effect seems apparent. But in what way do we quantify it? In the computational model, your data set would still be unique to you, no matter where it was manifested. You would not lose your individual identity and you would be no more or less you than you are now.

Right, you hit the nail on the head. You can’t quantify “consciousness”. What you are proposing is that we make a copy of who I currently am, and place it into a storage unit that does not suffer the rigors of biological breakdown which my current body does. That’s all groovy. In fact, that’s damned, damned appealing (so appealing that it’s the basis of Joseph Smith’s LDS religion). To everyone around they will see no difference between RobRoy and RobRoy 2.0. Except RobRoy 2.0 doesn’t have my consciousness. He is his own entity, unique to himself, and separate from me. He starts out with all of my memories, experiences, interpretations, etc., but he is not me. RobRoy 2.0 is someone else entirely different.

So it’s not that I’m losing my individual identity, but rather that RobRoy 2.0 continues on, while RobRoy dies and does not. My conscious self cannot be transferred from my decaying biological shell into a new storage unit. Only the data.

As I said, the scifi show “Caprica” started to explore this same concept (and so have other), and the underlying issues of consciousness. I don’t know if you’ve watched that, so I won’t use the concepts from that show in a more rigorous discussion. Suffice to say that the creation of a new entity based on the original is certainly possible (and very appealing), but that is not the same as transferring my conscious self from one storage unit to another and still have it be me.

[ufology]

Originally Posted by Paul2

Evidence? I see skeptics

1. using the procedures and checks of science,
2. citing scientific studies, sometimes by name of author,
3. using a shorthand for the above ("Einstein showed that . . . .")
but no
4. saying a claim is demonstrated because a scientist says so.

If you can cite an example, I might actually agree with you that it is an appeal to authority. But then, you'd have to show that there are many more of those.

You've got a long way to go.

So skeptics don't appeal to to science ( via scientists ) as an authority?

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by ufology

So skeptics don't appeal to to science ( via scientists ) as an authority?

You're not using the terminology correctly. I'm not mocking you, just pointing it out.

In this case, the fallacy of appeal to authority is saying, "Einstein believed in God" during an argument regarding religion. Einstein was a smart man, but he was an expert in physics, not in theology. On the other hand, citing when Einstein says that he believes in the "God of Spinoza", he appeals to an authority, but he commits no fallacy, because he's clearly defined his terms.

Simply saying that an intelligent individual, Paul2, believes something to be true, without offering additional support for the claim is committing the fallacy of appeal to authority. Saying that Paul2 has shown in his peer reviewed, published research that something is true, is not a fallacy. Further support, such as linking to the article or providing the citation, would remove all doubt.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by ufology

So skeptics don't appeal to to science ( via scientists ) as an authority?

No. The post you're responding to told you as much and pretending that it said something else won't work for you any better than any of your other word twisting balderdash.

[ufology]

Originally Posted by RobRoy

It might be, but that’s not what I was trying to say. I'm not ascribing a mystical portion of "me" to the consciousness. Just stating what you haven't considered in your "computational model".



Right, you hit the nail on the head. You can’t quantify “consciousness”. What you are proposing is that we make a copy of who I currently am, and place it into a storage unit that does not suffer the rigors of biological breakdown which my current body does. That’s all groovy. In fact, that’s damned, damned appealing (so appealing that it’s the basis of Joseph Smith’s LDS religion). To everyone around they will see no difference between RobRoy and RobRoy 2.0. Except RobRoy 2.0 doesn’t have my consciousness. He is his own entity, unique to himself, and separate from me. He starts out with all of my memories, experiences, interpretations, etc., but he is not me. RobRoy 2.0 is someone else entirely different.

So it’s not that I’m losing my individual identity, but rather that RobRoy 2.0 continues on, while RobRoy dies and does not. My conscious self cannot be transferred from my decaying biological shell into a new storage unit. Only the data.

As I said, the scifi show “Caprica” started to explore this same concept (and so have other), and the underlying issues of consciousness. I don’t know if you’ve watched that, so I won’t use the concepts from that show in a more rigorous discussion. Suffice to say that the creation of a new entity based on the original is certainly possible (and very appealing), but that is not the same as transferring my conscious self from one storage unit to another and still have it be me.

Not exactly. There is no copying involved in the sense you describe. In the computational model, everything ( the entire universe ) including you, your past and your present is already a complete data set of you. Therefore in the computational model, you aren't manifesting something that isn't already you. BTW: yes I watched some of Caprica. I love sci-fi. But again, in that model, you have personalities removed another level from the initial state ... ( from the current reaity into a VR world ). In that model you are absolutely correct about the copying issue.

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by ufology

So skeptics don't appeal to to science ( via scientists ) as an authority?

'Science' is not "an authority" it is a methodology and to date, the best methodology for reaching reliable conclusions about the physical world.

It is not a fallacy to appeal to science.

As science is done by scientists, it's not uncommon to cite the work of a particular scientist by name, but it is his work that is being cited as supporting evidence and not his name.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by ufology

In the computational model, everything ( the entire universe ) including you, your past and your present is already a complete data set of you. Therefore in the computational model, you aren't manifesting something that isn't already you.

Well it's not an afterlife then, is it?

[ufology]

Originally Posted by Resume

You can mention it all you like. That's a bit different from demonstrating it; so far all you've demonstrated is a weak supporting argument.

You are misrepresenting my position. You've implied that I need to demonstrate that the computational model is the way things are, but that would only apply if I were making that claim. I am not doing that. I'm only claiming that if it were true, and there seems to be no logical reason why it couldn't be, that it would allow for the possibility of an afterlife.

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by ufology

Not exactly. There is no copying involved in the sense you describe. In the computational model, everything ( the entire universe ) including you, your past and your present is already a complete data set of you. Therefore in the computational model, you aren't manifesting something that isn't already you.

Great. Then you should see that within the confines and reality of the "computational model" there is no way to transfer my consciousness to another storage unit.

Quote:

BTW: yes I watched some of Caprica. I love sci-fi. But again, in that model, you have personalities removed another level from the initial state ... ( from the current reaity into a VR world ). In that model you are absolutely correct about the copying issue.

That's not what I'm referencing from the show. As you're familiar, I'm citing the difference between the original Zoe and her Zoe avatar. Those were two completely different beings of consciousness. The original Zoe, Zoe 1.0 became a Soldier of the One and was killed when her boyfriend bombed the train. Zoe 2.0 was a simulacrum, and in almost every way the exact duplicate of Zoe, right down to believing she was the original. But she wasn't. Zoe 1.0 didn't transfer her consciousness into the avatar. She created the avatar from an extensive list of data points that gave the avatar Zoe 1.0's personality and which acted in almost every way like the original.

But the original was dead, and there was no transfer of consciousness. She ceased to exist, and Zoe 2.0 was not an afterlife for the original.

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Well it's not an afterlife then, is it?

Exactly. By almost any definition, what ufology is describing, even if the science fiction portion were possible, isn't afterlife. It's just life, a continuation in a different storage unit.

[ufology]

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

'Science' is not "an authority" it is a methodology and to date, the best methodology for reaching reliable conclusions about the physical world.

It is not a fallacy to appeal to science.

As science is done by scientists, it's not uncommon to cite the work of a particular scientist by name, but it is his work that is being cited as supporting evidence and not his name.

That's just the same as saying, "Because some scientist or another says so then it lends credibility to my case". So what? It's still an appeal to authority, however you're missing my initial point. Appeals to authority can be perfectly valid, but not simply because they come from a scientist or other expert, but because they have some objective basis that stands on its own regardless. Science tends to emulate this but it doesn't always get it right.

[ufology]

Originally Posted by RobRoy

Great. Then you should see that within the confines and reality of the "computational model" there is no way to transfer my consciousness to another storage unit.



That's not what I'm referencing from the show. As you're familiar, I'm citing the difference between the original Zoe and her Zoe avatar. Those were two completely different beings of consciousness. The original Zoe, Zoe 1.0 became a Soldier of the One and was killed when her boyfriend bombed the train. Zoe 2.0 was a simulacrum, and in almost every way the exact duplicate of Zoe, right down to believing she was the original. But she wasn't. Zoe 1.0 didn't transfer her consciousness into the avatar. She created the avatar from an extensive list of data points that gave the avatar Zoe 1.0's personality and which acted in almost every way like the original.

But the original was dead, and there was no transfer of consciousness. She ceased to exist, and Zoe 2.0 was not an afterlife for the original.



Exactly. By almost any definition, what ufology is describing, even if the science fiction portion were possible, isn't afterlife. It's just life, a continuation in a different storage unit.

Actually I was referencing exactly what you mention in the sense of there was the original Zoe and then there was the Zoe in the VR realm, one being original and the other being a copy ( or more accurately as you point out a reconstruction ). However we seem to still be having an issue on the difference between that and our existence within the computational model ( of the universe ). Continuing in another realm beyond this one after we complete our cycle here doesn't require being transferred into another storage unit. But even if it did, provided all the data that makes up you was moved ( not copied ), it wouldn't make any difference anyway. You would still be you no matter where it was moved to.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by ufology

Originally Posted by Resume

You can mention it all you like. That's a bit different from demonstrating it; so far all you've demonstrated is a weak supporting argument.

You are misrepresenting my position. Your implied position that I need to demonstrate that the computational model is the way things are, would only apply if I were making that claim. I am not doing that. I'm only claiming that if it were true, and there seems to be no logical reason why it couldn't be, that it would allow for the possibility of an afterlife.

Resume was being far too generous. It's your position itself that's weak and your supporting argument is actually non-existant.

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by ufology

Actually I was referencing exactly what you mention in the sense of there was the original Zoe and then there was the Zoe in the VR realm, one being original and the other being a copy ( or more accurately as you point out a reconstruction ).

Right, and they are two different, and separate beings, regardless of how exact the duplicate is.

Quote:

However we seem to still be having an issue on the difference between that and our existence within the computational model ( of the universe ). Continuing in another realm beyond this one after we complete our cycle here doesn't require being transferred into another storage unit.

Actually, yes it does. Currently, my storage unit is a decaying biological construct. If you want it to continue beyond the biological shells lifecycle, then whatever it is that makes me me has to be transferred, which includes my conscious self. Otherwise, how are you suggesting that it gets into this other realm?

Quote:

But even if it did, provided all the data that makes up you was moved ( not copied ), it wouldn't make any difference anyway. You would still be you no matter where it was moved to.

Which is what I've been saying the entire time. If you can move the conscious me, not just the data that makes up my life, then yeah, bang, immortality. If you can't, then you're just creating a copy of me, and I cease to exist when my shelf-life hits the expiration date.

In either case, you aren't meeting the definition of an afterlife. Either you can move my conscious self into the new storage format, in which case I simply continue on with life; or you can't, and I die while my simulacrum continues on with its new life. Neither is an afterlife.

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by RobRoy

You're not using the terminology correctly. I'm not mocking you, just pointing it out.

In this case, the fallacy of appeal to authority is saying, "Einstein believed in God" during an argument regarding religion. Einstein was a smart man, but he was an expert in physics, not in theology. On the other hand, citing when Einstein says that he believes in the "God of Spinoza", he appeals to an authority, but he commits no fallacy, because he's clearly defined his terms.

Simply saying that an intelligent individual, Paul2, believes something to be true, without offering additional support for the claim is committing the fallacy of appeal to authority. Saying that Paul2 has shown in his peer reviewed, published research that something is true, is not a fallacy. Further support, such as linking to the article or providing the citation, would remove all doubt.

Folo, I have nothing to add to the above.

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by ufology

That's just the same as saying, "Because some scientist or another says so then it lends credibility to my case". So what? It's still an appeal to authority, however you're missing my initial point. Appeals to authority can be perfectly valid, but not simply because they come from a scientist or other expert, but because they have some objective basis that stands on its own regardless. Science tends to emulate this but it doesn't always get it right.

Folo it's the difference between

1. "Einstein says A is correct." (implying, in context, that merely because E. says it, it's correct).

2. "Einstein says A is correct." (implying, in context, that Einstein's published, peer-reviewed paper shows that A is correct.)

1. is an appeal to authority, but 2 is not. Admittedly, it may be difficult or impossible to tell which is which (they use the same exact words), but clarifying questions would soon make the distinction.

[EHocking]

Originally Posted by EHocking

Rredefinition of science and/or appeal to authority in 5, 4, 3, 2....

.... 1....

Originally Posted by ufology

That's just the same as saying, "Because some scientist or another says so then it lends credibility to my case". So what? It's still an appeal to authority, however you're missing my initial point. Appeals to authority can be perfectly valid, but not simply because they come from a scientist or other expert, but because they have some objective basis that stands on its own regardless. Science tends to emulate this but it doesn't always get it right.

[ufology]

Originally Posted by Paul2

Folo it's the difference between

1. "Einstein says A is correct." (implying, in context, that merely because E. says it, it's correct).

2. "Einstein says A is correct." (implying, in context, that Einstein's published, peer-reviewed paper shows that A is correct.)

1. is an appeal to authority, but 2 is not. Admittedly, it may be difficult or impossible to tell which is which (they use the same exact words), but clarifying questions would soon make the distinction.

My last comment stands as is. However you've given me the opportunity to add here that the position that a so-called appeal to authority is valid when supported by a bunch of peer reviews, is actually combination of confirmation bias and argumentum ad populum. I've been at this long enough now to know that most of these tactics were designed for political debates and don't always apply to what we're actually talking about in any practical sense. More often they are used here in this forum as a diversionary tactic. Better you just drop them and just pose points that have logical consistency. Then there would be no need for invoking this list of debating tactics rather than dealing with the issue itself.

[ufology]

Originally Posted by RobRoy

Right, and they are two different, and separate beings, regardless of how exact the duplicate is.



Actually, yes it does. Currently, my storage unit is a decaying biological construct. If you want it to continue beyond the biological shells lifecycle, then whatever it is that makes me me has to be transferred, which includes my conscious self. Otherwise, how are you suggesting that it gets into this other realm?



Which is what I've been saying the entire time. If you can move the conscious me, not just the data that makes up my life, then yeah, bang, immortality. If you can't, then you're just creating a copy of me, and I cease to exist when my shelf-life hits the expiration date.

In either case, you aren't meeting the definition of an afterlife. Either you can move my conscious self into the new storage format, in which case I simply continue on with life; or you can't, and I die while my simulacrum continues on with its new life. Neither is an afterlife.

OK. We're getting closer to the real heart of the issue here and it could get interesting ... thanks for bearing with me and making your points in such a reasonable way. Where we are still not in synch is when you say, "Currently, my storage unit is a decaying biological construct."

In the computational model your storage unit is the construct itself, not your seemingly decaying body. All your body is is a set of sensory and memory input output filters for this particular reality. But during the time you use it, it also becomes a part of your overall data set and could also be reused ( regenerated or simply manifested ) and in every case, you would still be you at all times in the process ... at least to the same extent we think we remain who we are now whenever some part of us is repaired or regenerated.

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by ufology

My last comment stands as is. However you've given me the opportunity to add here that the position that a so-called appeal to authority is valid when supported by a bunch of peer reviews, is actually combination of confirmation bias and argumentum ad populum.

Well, I was enjoying our discussion, until you said the above. If you believe this, then you don't understand what the terms "scientific process" and "peer review" actually mean. They have nothing to do with "confirmation bias" or the fallacy of argument by popularity. In fact, they do everything to avoid those exact fallacies, which is why we put some measure of stock into citing scientific studies over, "Nine out of ten dentists agree that RockStar is awesome!*"

Originally Posted by ufology

OK. We're getting closer to the real heart of the issue here and could get interesting ... thanks for bearing with me and making your points in such a reasonable way. Where we are still not in synch is when you say, "Currently, my storage unit is a decaying biological construct."

In the computational model your storage unit is the construct itself, not your seemingly decaying body. All your body is is a set of sensory and memory input output filters for this particular reality. But during the time you use it, it also becomes a part of your overall data set and could also be reused ( regenerated or simply manifested ) and in every case, you would still be you at all times in the process ... at least to the same extent we think we remain who we are now whenever some part of us is repaired or regenerated.

Of course we're out of synch. I disagree with your position. This is exactly the reason that I disagree with it. You can't transfer consciousness within a computational model. If you're suggesting that you can, then you're not talking about science fact, you're talking about science fiction, and that's a moving set of goalposts that can't be argued with. The best that can be hoped for in a computational model is that all the data can make a simulacrum that my friends and family will never notice the difference.

There is something comforting about that, because then my hopes and dreams and whatnot become, to an extent, immortal. But I do not.

Either way, this isn't an afterlife.



*Please Note: Rockstar is awesome, but not because of dentists.

[AdMan]

Originally Posted by ufology

My last comment stands as is. However you've given me the opportunity to add here that the position that a so-called appeal to authority is valid when supported by a bunch of peer reviews, is actually combination of confirmation bias and argumentum ad populum.

Wow. That's the first time I'd heard that citing many peer-reviewed studies to support a claim was actually committing a logical fallacy.

You don't really believe that, do you? Or is argumentum ad populum yet one more term you don't understand?

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by ufology

My last comment stands as is. However you've given me the opportunity to add here that the position that a so-called appeal to authority is valid when supported by a bunch of peer reviews, is actually combination of confirmation bias and argumentum ad populum.

The list of things you don't understand gets longer everytime you post.
If a position is supported by a bunch of peer reviewed papers, it is not an appeal to authority, it is an appeal to science (not a fallacy).

"a bunch of peer reviewed papers" is neither confirmation bias or argumentum ad populum. It is science in action and science gives us the most reliable methodology for reaching accurate conclusions about our physical universe.

Originally Posted by ufology

I've been at this long enough now to know that most of these tactics were designed for political debates and don't always apply to what we're actually talking about in any practical sense. More often they are used here in this forum as a diversionary tactic. Better you just drop them and just pose points that have logical consistency. Then there would be no need for invoking this list of debating tactics rather than dealing with the issue itself.

Yes, I can see why you'd want everyone to overlook your constant use of fallacies and your constant misunderstanding of them in the hope that (without the rules of logic that they reside over) your ideas would become somehow acceptable... sadly (for you) this isn't the place to ask people to abandon the rules of logic or overlook the logical fallacies you post time after time.

[ufology]

Originally Posted by RobRoy

Well, I was enjoying our discussion, until you said the above. If you believe this, then you don't understand what the terms "scientific process" and "peer review" actually mean. They have nothing to do with "confirmation bias" or the fallacy of argument by popularity. In fact, they do everything to avoid those exact fallacies.

OK well then, it's not sufficient simply to say I don't understand, so I'll elaborate so you can form a proper rebuttal:

"In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it; which alleges: "If many believe so, it is so."

Appeal to authority says:

"The strength of this argument depends upon two factors:

1. The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
2. A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion."

The concept of a "legitimate expert" is determined by confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias, myside bias or verification bias, is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses. This is pretty much the whole point of getting peer reviewed in the first place ... to find other people in your peer group to favor information supporting your hypothesis. The concept that it must meet a consensus is pure argumentum ad populum as decribed above If many believe so, it is so.

Please don't forget ... I'm not proposing that these debating tactics are accurate in the first place. The logic in them when used together is not consistent and they are primarily a diversionary tactic ... which as you can see is working here. Since it was introduced by someone else ( not me ), our conversation has diverged into this. So how about we just dump this or go dicuss it on another thread ... if there is one for it?

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by ufology

Appeal to authority says:

You've cut and pasted from the wrong section of Wikipedia. The definition you provided it the legitimate use of an appeal to authority, which I reflected in my example above in regards to both Einstein and (the theoretical) Paul2. The proper section you should have cited for the fallacy of appeal to authority is this one:

Fallacious arguments from authority often are the result of failing to meet at least one of the two conditions from the previous section.[1][2] Specifically, when the inference fails to meet the first condition, this is sometimes called an "appeal to inappropriate authority".[3] This occurs when an inference relies on individuals or groups without relevant expertise or knowledge.[3]

Secondly, because the argument is inductive (which in this sense implies that the truth of the conclusion cannot be guaranteed by the truth of the premises), it also is fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true.[2] Such an assertion is a non sequitur; the inductive argument might have probabilistic or statistical merit, but the conclusion does not follow unconditionally in the sense of being logically necessary.[4][5]

Quote:

Please don't forget ... I'm not proposing that these debating tactics are accurate in the first place. The logic in them when used together is not consistent and they are primarily a diversionary tactic ... which as you can see is working here. Since it was introduced by someone else ( not me ), our conversation has diverged into this. So how about we just dump this or go dicuss it on another thread ... if there is one for it?

By using the wrong definition for the fallacy you then used the concept of "confirmation basis" incorrectly as well. Peer review under proper scientific rigors is never confirmation bias. That's the whole point. Again, you don't understand what "peer review" means in this case, otherwise you wouldn't suggest the definition you offered.

I've reviewed the thread, and the question about your appeal to authority is an appropriate criticism in regards to the fallacy, one that has gone unanswered. I understand that at first you might claim this to be mere sophistry, an argumentative tactic, but it is not. It's actually something that you should be able to address quite easily. I don't want to speculate why you haven't done so, perhaps you're just being overly emotional because you have been called for the fallacious reasoning.

If so, I'd suggest, in as friendly a way, that you admit it and move on. I commit such fallacies of thinking from time to time, and it's no shame to be called on it. In fact, it's a good way to bring about better discussion. Admit where you made the mistake, don't try to shore up the boat after its sunk. <shrug>

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by EHocking

Originally Posted by EHocking

Rredefinition of science and/or appeal to authority in 5, 4, 3, 2....

.... 1....

Originally Posted by ufology

That's just the same as saying, "Because some scientist or another says so then it lends credibility to my case". So what? It's still an appeal to authority, however you're missing my initial point. Appeals to authority can be perfectly valid, but not simply because they come from a scientist or other expert, but because they have some objective basis that stands on its own regardless. Science tends to emulate this but it doesn't always get it right.

Death, taxes and Rredefinitions.

[Resume]

Originally Posted by ufology

[/list]The concept of a "legitimate expert" is determined by confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias, myside bias or verification bias, is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses. This is pretty much the whole point of getting peer reviewed in the first place ... to find other people in your peer group to favor information supporting your hypothesis.

Huh?

[Resume]

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Death, taxes and Rredefinitions.

They are becoming more frequent. That's ominous I think.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by ufology

My last comment stands as is.

They all do, in fact. They're all wrong and that's just how they'll stay.

You don't even appear to understand what is meant by 'afterlife' so it's unlikely that anything you have to say in a thread with that as its topic is going to be right, now is it?

[ufology]

Originally Posted by RobRoy

Well, I was enjoying our discussion, until you said the above. If you believe this, then you don't understand what the terms "scientific process" and "peer review" actually mean. They have nothing to do with "confirmation bias" or the fallacy of argument by popularity. In fact, they do everything to avoid those exact fallacies, which is why we put some measure of stock into citing scientific studies over, "Nine out of ten dentists agree that RockStar is awesome!*"



Of course we're out of synch. I disagree with your position. This is exactly the reason that I disagree with it. You can't transfer consciousness within a computational model. If you're suggesting that you can, then you're not talking about science fact, you're talking about science fiction, and that's a moving set of goalposts that can't be argued with. The best that can be hoped for in a computational model is that all the data can make a simulacrum that my friends and family will never notice the difference.

There is something comforting about that, because then my hopes and dreams and whatnot become, to an extent, immortal. But I do not.

Either way, this isn't an afterlife.



*Please Note: Rockstar is awesome, but not because of dentists.

You still seem to missing the idea that within the computational model consciousness isn't being transferred, it exists as part of your data set no matter where it is, so no matter where it is you are. but it is only apparent to you that you are someplace ( anyplace ) when you are conscious. However we are not always conscious, we usually sleep several hours a day. In other cases, such as during operations or accidents we lose consciousness altogether ... we are for all intents and purposes dead for some period of time before being revived. So the idea that we need to be entirely conscious at all times in order to retain our self identity can become a real quagmire. The computational model facilitates all these circumstances as well or better than assuming that we are not in such a construct. As applied to the possibility of an afterlife, perhaps there may be some lapse of consciousness before being integrated into the next reality, but that is no different than going to sleep in Toronto and waking up in New York. Only the causal mechanism for the change in your data set's coordinates is different.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by Resume

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Death, taxes and Rredefinitions.

They are becoming more frequent. That's ominous I think.

It certainly doesn't bode well for ufology. He already appears to be well beyond the point where he shares a common language with the rest of us.

[ufology]

Originally Posted by RobRoy

You've cut and pasted from the wrong section of Wikipedia. The definition you provided it the legitimate use of an appeal to authority, which I reflected in my example above in regards to both Einstein and (the theoretical) Paul2. The proper section you should have cited for the fallacy of appeal to authority is this one:

Fallacious arguments from authority often are the result of failing to meet at least one of the two conditions from the previous section.[1][2] Specifically, when the inference fails to meet the first condition, this is sometimes called an "appeal to inappropriate authority".[3] This occurs when an inference relies on individuals or groups without relevant expertise or knowledge.[3]

Secondly, because the argument is inductive (which in this sense implies that the truth of the conclusion cannot be guaranteed by the truth of the premises), it also is fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true.[2] Such an assertion is a non sequitur; the inductive argument might have probabilistic or statistical merit, but the conclusion does not follow unconditionally in the sense of being logically necessary.[4][5]

By using the wrong definition for the fallacy you then used the concept of "confirmation basis" incorrectly as well. Peer review under proper scientific rigors is never confirmation bias. That's the whole point. Again, you don't understand what "peer review" means in this case, otherwise you wouldn't suggest the definition you offered.

I've reviewed the thread, and the question about your appeal to authority is an appropriate criticism in regards to the fallacy, one that has gone unanswered. I understand that at first you might claim this to be mere sophistry, an argumentative tactic, but it is not. It's actually something that you should be able to address quite easily. I don't want to speculate why you haven't done so, perhaps you're just being overly emotional because you have been called for the fallacious reasoning.

If so, I'd suggest, in as friendly a way, that you admit it and move on. I commit such fallacies of thinking from time to time, and it's no shame to be called on it. In fact, it's a good way to bring about better discussion. Admit where you made the mistake, don't try to shore up the boat after its sunk. <shrug>

Your quote regarding the two conditions you say I didn't correctly quote are the two conditions I quoted. Specifically this is what you seem to say you are referring to correctly but I'm not:

From your post above: "Fallacious arguments from authority often are the result of failing to meet at least one of the two conditions from the previous section.[1][2] "

And these are those two conditions from the same article that I posted:

1. The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
2. A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion."

So let's get past this issue of debating tactics please. Or move it to another thread.

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by ufology

OK well then, it's not sufficient simply to say I don't understand, so I'll elaborate so you can form a proper rebuttal:

"In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it; which alleges: "If many believe so, it is so."

But if I say "the world is round" is that an argumentum ad populum?
Because everyone (who is sane) says the world is round.

I'll tell you, no it's not. Because no one is saying "the world is round because everyone says it is". They are saying here is the proof that the world is round and then everyone agrees with the conclusion the evidence points towards... this is not a fallacy!

Originally Posted by ufology

Appeal to authority says:
"The strength of this argument depends upon two factors:

1. The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
2. A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion."

The concept of a "legitimate expert" is determined by confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias, myside bias or verification bias, is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.

No it is not.
The scientific process is geared towards eliminating confirmation bias and a legitimate expert is not determined by his title but by his work (which will be adhering to the scientific process which as we know is the most reliable process with which to determine reliable conclusions about our physical universe). The scientific process allows for the fact that even legitimate experts can be wrong sometimes and so their work is reviewed and any flaws pointed out.

Originally Posted by ufology

This is pretty much the whole point of getting peer reviewed in the first place ... to find other people in your peer group to favor information supporting your hypothesis.

We're adding "peer review" to the list of things you don't understand.
Though I can understand to an extent why you'd reach that conclusion as that's the way pseudo science works and you'll have come across that faulty method a lot in your chosen hobby.

Originally Posted by ufology

The concept that it must meet a consensus is pure argumentum ad populum as decribed above If many believe so, it is so.

Again no.
If your work is compelling enough and your conclusions supported by your evidence (adhering to the strict scientific method), it will meet with scientific approval, but only until something more compelling with better evidence contradicts it.
The passing the peer review process really only allows the work to be fully published where it meets it's real challenge of being open to scrutiny by the science world in general, who will have the method, protocols and data sets revealed in the body of work so they can replicate the studies to see if they get the same results or suggest other things which the original scientist may not have considered. Remember that science constantly tries to prove itself wrong, it doesn't try to prove itself right.

Originally Posted by ufology

Please don't forget ... I'm not proposing that these debating tactics are accurate in the first place. The logic in them when used together is not consistent and they are primarily a diversionary tactic ...

They are only not consistent when they are (ironically) consistently misrepresented by people who don't understand them.
When placed in their correct context and given their correct and accurate significance, they are immensely accurate and consistent in providing a clear path through a logical maze.