Reincarnation: Reality or Myth?

[Ziggy Stardust]

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

You think that looking at a couple of videos is sufficient to make a sound judgement on the research and is a good substitution for peer review?

Look, I can imagine the videos will convince the hell out of someone who already has subscribed to the concept of reincarnation. But that doesn't make it scientific. For that we need reproducible results by peers. Not spending a couple of minutes watching a couple of videos.

If that were true, Ye Olde Aliens would have been scientifically proven episodes ago.

 

[Kyriakos]

Well, some phenomena are bound to remain theoretically examined, though. (eg Black holes). No way to actually reproduce them (and it would not be a good idea to try either ).

 

[Borachio]

Oh I don't know. A very small black hole might be quite useful for garbage disposal purposes.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well, some phenomena are bound to remain theoretically examined, though. (eg Black holes). No way to actually reproduce them (and it would not be a good idea to try either ).

I'm not asking to reproduce the phenomena. I'm asking for reproduction of the research and results. You can reproduce the research into black holes and the results.

 

[Kyriakos]

Oh I don't know. A very small black hole might be quite useful for garbage disposal purposes.

Hm... Maybe that is why there were some articles about lazy people not being accepted to PhD programs (i mean, you can sort of expect something along the lines of: "I was too lazy to go outside, and worked on my thesis on black holes anyway, so i thought... Sorry, Sorry everyone!"

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

You think that looking at a couple of videos is sufficient to make a sound judgement on the research and is a good substitution for peer review?

Look, I can imagine the videos will convince the hell out of someone who already has subscribed to the concept of reincarnation. But that doesn't make it scientific. For that we need reproducible results by peers. Not spending a couple of minutes watching a couple of videos.

If that were true, Ye Olde Aliens would have been scientifically proven episodes ago.

For Olde Aliens sake check out the first video. The peer review was obviously done by Jim Trucker.

40 years of investigation, 2500 cases ivestigated about half of them "solved" (the children memories were confirmed by identifying them with life accidents of actual decesed person)

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

For Olde Aliens sake check out the first video.

For Ye Olde Aliens sake read my post. I just told you why I think that won't do much good. Read damn you!

edit: Supernatural investigators? Really?

Thanks! I'm so sorry I dismissed the idea so quickly. That was worth watching

One good deed deserves another


Link to video.

The peer review was obviously done by Jim Trucker.

40 years of investigation, 2500 cases ivestigated about half of them "solved" (the children memories were confirmed by identifying them with life accidents of actual decesed person)

And his conclusion wasn't that he's been wasting 40 years of his life, but he confirmed Mr. Stevenson's research? That's very surprising.

Again, I'm not dismissing any of the research done, but I think that the leap from that research to proof of reincarnation is a pretty big one. That is assuming the methodology is not lacking.

 

[Borachio]

The second video explicitly says they don't have proof of reincarnation, but evidence that consciousness survives death of some individuals.

In the same way, the guy says, that there's no proof that tobacco causes lung cancer, but that the epidemiological evidence is so strong that no one doubts it.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Again, I'm not dismissing any of the research done, but I think that the leap from that research to proof of reincarnation is a pretty big one. That is assuming the methodology is not lacking.

Since when evidence means a proof? The video you posted is full of "ifs" and hypothesis (I am not saying its not interesting in a way) but how do you compare it to actual rigorous basic investigation? If you have some childrens very accurate memories and you can confirm them through finding them to be real prior to these childrens life you have got something solid - some evidence.

 

[Borachio]

Link to video.

Much less convincing, imo.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Much less convincing, imo.

I'd say it's downright silly.

 

[peter grimes]

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.

I think you're making the mistake of assuming that question has an answer in the first place. Just because you can imagine a question does not at all imply that there must exist an answer.

Why are ants here?

Why are viruses here?

Why are ice crystals here?

Just because something exists doesn't automatically mean it has a higher cause - and even if it did, that wouldn't necessarily imply "reincarnation".

Unless and until we have evidence for some mechanism whereby "soul" can interact with luminous matter, we're left with not just a lack of evidence, but a positive restriction on the possibility of evidence for these phenomena.

We actually do know how the macroscopic universe works, and we know that there's nothing "supernatural" going on that might alter it. There's more to be still filled in on the margins, certainly. But these margins are either so nano-scopic as to preclude an effect on the scale of atoms, or so weak as to only have an effect over galactic scales of gravitational mass. In other words, these margins don't affect our lives.

I take this to be the strongest evidence against a soul - and by [small] extension, reincarnation.

 

[Domen]

cases of people claiming some criminal has been reincarnated and them claiming redress against small children. It's madness if you ask me.

Aren't all criminals reincarnated as bugs, insects, or rats at best? According to those who believe in reincarnation, of course.

IIRC, you can be reincarnated as human again, only if you was a good human (or a "good" animal) in your previous incarnation.

Perhaps petty criminals get reincarnated as creatures like Koko gorilla (IQ 95, can understand 2000 English words, but still just a monkey):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_(gorilla)


Link to video.

 

[Rashiminos]

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.

Both of those leaps seem about the same, really.

In one case the consciousness copies its memories to the new child, and in the other, a fetus becomes a baby when a soul starts inhabiting it.

But that doesn't answer my question.

Your question was anthropocentric, and the generation of new souls need not preclude the recycling of other souls, unless one's identity hangs on beliefs about tossing heathen souls into lakes of fire.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Both of those leaps seem about the same, really.

In one case the consciousness copies its memories to the new child, and in the other, a fetus becomes a baby when a soul starts inhabiting it.

Maybe in Heaven there's a possibility to have another shot at life. And the souls can come back, God willing, as new-born souls. Then they don't seem the same, they are.

tossing heathen souls into lakes of fire

Reminds me of tossing Ewoks in lakes of methane on Titan.

 

[timtofly]

It is interesting that people are now twisting concepts from different religions and commenting on the merits as if they belonged together. Up until the philosophies became a way to examine how the Bible relates to the soul, the Hebrews held that there was a place where the dead remained fixed until the resurrection. The closest thing that resembles the pre-existence of the soul was that God foreknew how a person would spend their eternal existence after life via the Book of Life. Every human that ever existed or ever will had their name written in it. I am not sure how theologians went from a name written down to a soul in holding somewhere. Perhaps names got lonely without a soul around? It seems that the only place holder was a name, and once dead, the soul remains as a place holder for the person until the end of time.

The only idea that reincarnation or the belief in purgatory even make sense in regards to each other is that humans feel the need to circumvent God's will and make their own way through life. God was incarnated in Jesus and the path Jesus took was all that was needed to suffice God. I am not sure why humans do not recognize that they really do not have to do it on their own.

It would seem to me that if science can prove such things do happen, then it would put another "plank and nail" in God's non-existence.

@ ziggy

it reminds me of what is going to happen when the sun finally dies and engulfs the solar system. Time for a new sun.

 

[Borachio]

I'd say it's downright silly.

I agree.

But seriously what am I to make of this?


Link to video.

This Turner guy seems to have evaluated the Stevenson evidence and considered every angle I can think of.

So, what am I to do? I don't have access to the original research. Nor, even if I did, is it likely I could find out whether the "evidence" is valid.

Should I think that Turner is simply gullible, or in on the conspiracy with Stevenson, or should I take what he says at face value?

Turner seems to be a sober-minded scientist to me. And I don't think he's claiming evidence for reincarnation as such. Simply that somehow, believe it or not, information is getting transferred from people who've experienced traumatic deaths to infants.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

This Turner guy seems to have evaluated the Stevenson evidence and considered every angle I can think of.

So, what am I to do? I don't have access to the original research. Nor, even if I did, is it likely I could find out whether the "evidence" is valid.

Should I think that Turner is simply gullible, or in on the conspiracy with Stevenson, or should I take what he says at face value?

Turner has spent 40 years of his life doing the same research. As a programmer I can tell you that when I spend a long time on a program, I need other programmers who are unfamiliar with the project to go through my code. They'll spot fatal bugs I don't because I have become too invested in it. That doesn't mean there are fatal bugs, but I don't trust my own judgement. Neither would I trust that of a programmer who co-operated with me.

So for credibility and confirmation of the methods peer reviews are needed from scientists who aren't as invested as Turner and Stevenson are. Turner probably is not gullible, there probably is no conspiracy and you shouldn't take what he said at face value. That is why peer review is important.

Turner seems to be a sober-minded scientist to me. And I don't think he's claiming evidence for reincarnation as such. Simply that somehow, believe it or not, information is getting transferred from people who've experienced traumatic deaths to infants.

And I'm not questioning his claims, for the simple reason I didn't know them.

I'm questioning those who claim this is evidence for reincarnation, regardless who makes the claim. If neither Stevenson nor Turner makes this claim, good for them. But if people point at this research and go: look! evidence for reincarnation, I surely am questioning that.

And for good reason it seems. Because those people are unable to back it up with reasoning. Which leaves me wondering how much they themselves know of this research beyond a cursory familiarity gained from a couple of bite-sized clips of popular science programs. It seems they claim the research is beyond question. And as you well know, nothing in science is beyond question.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

And for good reason it seems. Because those people are unable to back it up with reasoning. Which leaves me wondering how much they themselves know of this research beyond a cursory familiarity gained from a couple of bite-sized clips of popular science programs. It seems they claim the research is beyond question. And as you well know, nothing in science is beyond question.

And I am wondering what kind of reasoning you have in mind?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Yes, I know you are.

Which made me abandon our conversation.