Reincarnation: Reality or Myth?

[Tahuti]

Show me a single disembodied consciousness and I'll believe in the possibility of souls.

The problem is that it can't be shown, however, neither can the opposite. I think the most rational policy is in this case is to be agnostic, since we lack the perceptive capacity to empirically disprove either - and make the other more likely.

Also, "soul" is perhaps the wrong word, even if it is simillar. The human brain often contains several "urges" that are sometimes contradictory to each other. Cognitive dissonance and all that.

 

[classical_hero]

Maybe they're transferred from destroyed worlds that were asteroided to death?

That means you don't know. This is something you simply cannot know.

Or destroyed by warfare...

But that doesn't answer my question.

Maybe there are souls waiting for their debut.

That is not reincarnation.

 

[Tahuti]

That is not reincarnation.

Only if it precludes these souls from reincarnation.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Maybe only some consciences under certain circumstances are reincarnated.

While the mechanism is unknown the numbers game is irrelevant.

 

[Kyriakos]

Maybe only some consciences under certain circumstances are reincarnated.

While the mechanism is unknown the numbers game is irrelevant.

Entirely correct as a statement, of course Also AFAIK even hinduism presents the circles or re-incarnation as something which the people who have not reached the ending of their 'development' (don't recall the actual term) keep going through. So some in that system are argued to break free of the circle anyway.

 

[Borachio]

Moksha

 

[Tee Kay]

How can their be re-incarnation when right now their are more creatures alive than at any time, especially humans?

<snip>

Moderator Action: This is a RD thread, spam deleted.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[illram]

I was thinking about this when I was pondering another related thought recently. If you could copy yourself ala the star trek transporter (I.e., disassemble all of your atoms and reassemble them somewhere else) would the copy still be "you?" No one else could verify that and if it wasn't "you" your replacement would have no idea "you" died and they took over. Reincarnation seems similarly unverifiable. Of course defining "you" is an issue in this thought experiment as well.

But it is a comforting thought, depending on what flavor you want to believe in.

 

[Kyriakos]

Afaik (and the OP refers to this methodology) those who actively try to examine if re-incarnation happens, do so by trying to examine if the memories presented as supposed previous lives experiences, are compatible with any historic data of the dead person who is deemed as being now alive in the one having those memories.

While the premise is strange, the methodology is rather logical. But maybe it is virtually impossible to prove any previous life experience, unless you are very meticulous, and the memories are very specific and linked to other specific contexts etc.
I haven't had the urge to look into this sort of phenomenon, though.

 

[Bugfatty300]

As per medical consensus, I'm fairly convinced that my mind exists in my brain. When I die my brain will decompose and thus my personality, memories will become irreversibly lost as the atoms that made up my brain move on to make other things. Continuity of myself beyond that point seems to be wishful thinking, but I'm plenty grateful that I've had a chance to exist at all.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

How can their be re-incarnation when right now their are more creatures alive than at any time, especially humans?

Reincarnation is a complex proces. Soul exists right down from material objects to presently most developed terestrial creature - man. And there are constantly new souls being created as well.

I don't think Mr. Stevenson's methodology is any good, yet I find it a bit hard to believe - even as an agnostic atheist - there is completely nothing after death as it arguably will leave open questions like why we are here in the first place.

While I have yet to see compelling evidence for reincarnation, I also have yet to see compelling evidence for pure nothingness, or afterlifes linked to judgment which may or may not be in conjunction with reincarnation. Evidence over the afterlife - or lack of it - we will get might never be found at all. In other words, we will left in the dark until we die ourselves.

From what I know the dude has spend few decades on colecting data. And its in fact sort of simple basic research. Plus he himself had no cultural or religious bias. Hardly somebody more fit for that...


Time for some videos:

Link to video.

Link to video.

 

[plarq]

Religions and supernatural phenomena are directly linked to schizophrenia.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Religions and supernatural phenomena are directly linked to schizophrenia.

Making baseless silly statements is directly linked to schizophora.

 

[Tahuti]

From what I know the dude has spend few decades on colecting data. And its in fact sort of simple basic research. Plus he himself had no cultural or religious bias. Hardly somebody more fit for that...

The problem is that such methodology is highly prone to confirmation biases, which is perhaps far more pernicious to any scientific research than cultural or religious biases. On top of that, there might be an immense amount of confounding factors, including the fact that are simply so many humans that chances are fairly high they might have certain thoughts that uncannily resemble other human's past lives.

We do have the ability to check out what happens after death, so we should keep open any option, including reincarnation but also absolute nothingness. In the meantime, Stevenson's research will not be the way to get closer to understanding any existence after death.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

From what I know the dude has spend few decades on colecting data. And its in fact sort of simple basic research. Plus he himself had no cultural or religious bias. Hardly somebody more fit for that...

That doesn't rule out the bit you bolded.

Wait, hang on ...

Reincarnation is a complex process.
[...]
And its in fact sort of simple basic research.

Ok. Lets for argument sake say the memories are real.

Tell me how he ruled out the possibility that we become a floating consciousness when we die. When in the womb a baby comes into contact with that floating consciousness, they inherent some of their experiences and that's why they can give such accurate accounts.

Yes, it's an outrageous possibility, but so is reincarnation.

It's a big leap from kids remembering other people's thoughts to reincarnation. And figuring that out scientifically is far from simple basic research.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

That doesn't rule out the bit you bolded.

Sure, not necessarily. But as long as I havent seen single argument supporting that statement I can take it seriously.

Ok. Lets for argument sake say the memories are real.

Tell me how he ruled out the possibility that we become a floating consciousness when we die. When in the womb a baby comes into contact with that floating consciousness, they inherent some of their experiences and that's why they can give such accurate accounts.

Yes, it's an outrageous possibility, but so is reincarnation.

It's a big leap from kids remembering other people's thoughts to reincarnation. And figuring that out scientifically is far from simple basic research.

I dont think the professor ever declared reincarnation as a fact. Only after colecting the data he found it to be solid evidence for possibility for something which is traditionaly called reincarnation. It doesnt mean by no means that the process of rebirth can be known through such an accounts in its totality.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Sure, not necessarily. But as long as I havent seen single argument supporting that statement I can take it seriously.

Lack of peer review.

I dont think the professor ever declared reincarnation as a fact. Only after colecting the data he found it to be solid evidence for possibility for something which is traditionaly called reincarnation. It doesnt mean by no means that the process of rebirth can be known through such an accounts in its totality.

solid evidence for possibility for something which is traditionaly called reincarnation

Sounds impresive, but it really means very little.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Lack of peer review.



solid evidence for possibility for something which is traditionaly called reincarnation

Sounds impresive, but it really means very little.

Just look at the videos if you dont have the time to judge the colected data directly....

 

[Eukaryote]

My wild guess is that there is about a 20% chance that there's an afterlife.

I have seen some documentaries online about children who remember past lives. They were certainly entertaining and they made some convincing arguments, but I do not consider them reliable.

 

[illram]

How did he figure out who the "past life" people were? How did he rule out coincidence? Kids have good imaginations, there are undoubtedly people who have died in every way a kid could dream of.