On a previous thread (now closed) by Gullible's Travel's asking for thoughts about reincarnation, MJ wrote the following in response to Reed Smith:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,151097



**No, reincarnation is not a difficult issue for science.

In science, if there is no evidence that indicates that something exists, the assumption is that it does not exist. Sorry, but huge assumptions and speculation are not evidence.

So, if someone wants to stay that reincarnation is real, they need to present the evidence to back up that claim. It is then reviewed and accepted as legitimate evidence or rejected.

As of yet, the people that claim reincarnation does exist have yet to produce any evidence that stands up to scrutiny that reincarnation exists, so the assumption is that it does not.**



First, it is easy to agree that "huge assumptions and speculation are not evidence," and I don't think Reed Smith was saying anything different. But to your claim:

Your use of "as of yet" carries the presumption of authority on the subject, and so I will take you at your word. So I ask:

1. Who are "the people" specifically that claim the existence of reincarnation? And, in context with the discussion with Reed and Foxe, I don't suppose you are speaking of religious claims but of scientific claims.

2. What precisely is wrong with their evidence (non-evidence in your mind)?

3. What would constitute evidence? In other words, how should the scientists who are interested in the subject go about gathering evidence and testing the validity of what is one of Mankind's most ancient belief?

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> 1. Who are "the people" specifically that claim
> the existence of reincarnation? And, in context
> with the discussion with Reed and Foxe, I don't
> suppose you are speaking of religious claims but
> of scientific claims.
>

If you had done me the respect to read the quote you posted, in particular the first two words of the second sentance, "In science" you would have know the people of which I speak and would have had no reason for the "I don't suppose you are speaking of religious claims but of scientific claims." Comment.

> 2. What precisely is wrong with their evidence
> (non-evidence in your mind)?

It fails scientific peer review, as I had to point out again was was talking about "in science".

>
> 3. What would constitute evidence? In other
> words, how should the scientists who are
> interested in the subject go about gathering
> evidence and testing the validity of what is one
> of Mankind's most ancient belief?

That would be a problem that the scientists promoting the idea that reincarnation exists would face. It is not up to me or anyone else to decide the best way to prove THEIR point or what the best evidence would be and how to gather it. That is up to them to decide and present to their peer. There peers then judge if their evidence, how they gathered it, and tested it are valid and that the evidence supports the claim being made. This is often done by recreating the experiments of observations, it it can't be recreated, it usually is rejected.

This does not change if it is an ancient belief that is being tested or a new hypothesis. The ancient belief that the world was the center of the universe was toppled by people gathering evidence though careful observation, then presenting their evidence. Eventually, once religion got out of the way, the scientific peers were able to accept the data, verify the observations, etc.. The only roll the "ancient belief" had was to impend the advancement of knowledge.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/2011 05:54PM by MJ.

I'm not asking you to prove anything.

But I would like you to name the scientists who claim the validity of reincarnation, the evidence they cite, and why in your opinion they come up short. And, if you could, what might be a better, more scientific way for them to go about testing and presenting their claims.

I am not making the claim that reincarnation exists, so why should I have to provide any evidence of such, including the names of people making such claims?

As I said in my first point "In science, if there is no evidence that indicates that something exists, the assumption is that it does not exist." If nobody is presenting evidence that reincarnation is real, then there is no evidence that reincarnation is real to be considered, and thus no reason to believe that reincarnation exists. And if there is no evidence to review, the claim fails peer review (second point).

Now, if you want to claim that there ARE people presenting such evidence, and that such evidence has passed peer review, then it is up to you to provide evidence to back up such claims. I have seen no such evidence and you have not provided any, so I do not see any reason to believe your claim.

So, provide you evidence that valid claims are being made, and I along with many others will review it. But I have no obligation to back up a claim that I am not making.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/2011 06:10PM by MJ.

Your claim:

"As of yet, the people that claim reincarnation does exist have yet to produce any evidence that stands up to scrutiny that reincarnation exists."

This suggests that you know of scientists who claim the validity of reincarnation. It also suggests that you are familiar with their evidence and argument, at least enough to dismiss it as inadequate. And it suggests that you might have an opinion as to why their evidence and arguments don't stand up to scrutiny.

Now, if you don't want to back up your claim, that's fine with me. It's my fault, really. I assumed that you might know what you are talking about.

In any event, Cheers

Human

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your claim:
>
> "As of yet, the people that claim reincarnation
> does exist have yet to produce any evidence that
> stands up to scrutiny that reincarnation exists."

Just addressed that in post

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,151980,152057#msg-152057


Now if you want to claim that reincarnation exists, or that there are any claims submitted for peer review, then it is up to you to provide such evidence.

MJ does take pains to do research concerning topics he agrees with. To do impartial research on topics contrary to one's belief involves the risk that one's views might *change*. To "know your enemy" may mean that this person doesn't remain an enemy. And yet this is the most effective way to refute others' errors.

I am reminded of the early life of Rudolf Steiner, who was born clairvoyant and had to struggle to contain this and learn the "commonsense" of people who couldn't see. Knowing that materialism was off-base, he nevertheless threw himself into intense scientific study at university (mathematics, physics, philosophy)--"entering the Belly of the Beast," as he put it--so successfully that he was commissioned to be the editor of Goethe's scientific works. This later served him well when he introduced other approaches to education, medicine, agriculture, natural science, sociology, and economics.

On the other hand, some people want to keep enemies or make them. To be able to define oneself and one's views as "right," one needs wrong conditions and people to offset oneself and emphasize the contrast, so that one can revel in one's (often unappreciated) specialness. And that subconscious mindset actually appears to attract those very offsetting conditions, which you "want to not want."

Don't have time to research everything. That is why I ask people like Human and those who claim reincarnation exist to provide the evidence to back up their claims. A perfectly valid stance to take, otherwise we would all be accepting claims like "there is a Pepsi machine on Pluto". No, I would not investigate such a claim, I would ask someone what evidence they had to back up that claim, but I wouldn't investigate the claim just because someone made the claim.

That is one of my criteria in deciding what to investigate or not to investigate. If it is not important enough for the person making the claim to supply the evidence to back up the claim, it is not likely to be important enough for me to investigate their claim.

So, if someone wants to claim that reincarnation exists, I would ask for the evidence, if they are unwilling to do the research to get the evidence to back up their claim, I see NO reason why I should be expected to do ANY research on the claim or any reason why I should accept that claim as valid.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/2011 07:19PM by MJ.

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Your use of "as of yet" carries the presumption of
> authority on the subject, and so I will take you
> at your word. So I ask:
>

You are correct, I was not clear on my point. I was speaking from the perspective of my own knowledge. It was a poor way of expressing my ideas and does indicate a conclusion other than I wanted to make, so let me restate that:

As far as I know or have seen, there have been no peer reviewed claims (successful or otherwise) that reincarnation exists. I am the authority on what I know or have seen and I am only making a claim about my knowledge.

Note, that I do not claim that there were peer reviewed claims that failed, so I don't need to back up that sort of claim.

If you want to claim that there are claims that reincarnation that have been peer reviewed, it is up to you to present evidence to back up YOUR claim.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/2011 06:40PM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> As far as I know or have seen, there have been no
> successfully peer reviewed claims that
> reincarnation exists. I am the authority on what I
> know or have seen and I am only making a claim
> about my knowledge.
>
> Note, that I do not claim that there were peer
> reviewed claims that failed, so I don't need to
> back up that sort of claim.


Okay, that's more clear. Thank you.

Now that you've cleared that up, would you be willing to share exactly how far your "as far as I know or have seen" goes?

You are indeed the authority of what you know, and so all I am asking for is exactly what it is you know about scientific claims for the existence of reincarnation. Can you name even one claim? Or is your point that as far as you know there aren't any scientists making such claims?

Thank you.

And as far as I know or have seen, there have been no peer reviewed claims (successful or otherwise) that reincarnation exists.

If you want to claim that such peer review stuff does exist, it is up to you to provide evidence to back up your claim.

"Impartial" (research) is the key word. For example, skeptics seem to do extensive (though selective) research on the subjects they seek to debunk without ever gaining empathy for those who do believe.

Remember a while ago the news story of Berkeley, California atheist Gina Welch who moved to Virginia for grad school. Wanting to understand the conservative evangelical mindset, she "went undercover" at Jerry Falwell's church--and found that the more she learned about evangelical Christians, the less she understood. She finally left, without a word to her new friends (which she did make many of), but felt guilty and later returned to explain her deception...and "received forgiveness and grace" from them. She subsequently served as an interpreter of evangelicals to secular progressives.

I am willing to look at any evidence you put forward, it is up to you to do so, but you seem to think that I should just accept your word. I would think that your belief that your word is better than mine indicates that it is you that is impartial.

I have stated that it is up to those that claim reincarnation is real to provide the evidence to back up that claim. Till then, I see no reason to believe that claim, just as I would not believe the claim that there is a Pepsi machine on Pluto.

So, why is it that you feel the need to indicate that I am impartial, making this about ME PERSONALLY, rather than just supply the evidence that supports your view so we could have a civil discussion about the ISSUES and stop with the petty personal stuff?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/2011 07:45PM by MJ.

MJ stated:

"In science, if there is no evidence that indicates that something exists, the assumption is that it does not exist. Sorry, but huge assumptions and speculation are not evidence."

There is abundant evidence for reincarnation, if one accepts credible and consistent reports, many of which are verifiable. This is not even much disputed anymore, except by hardcore skeptics who know little about the subject. What is lacking is a scientific explanation for such evidence. This is clearly and basically within the parameter of science, by definition. The business of science is exactly to explain the phenomena of experience.

Moreover, the fact that a proposed explanation is speculative does not take it out of the realm of science. Science begins with speculation, often quite extreme, and often without supporting empirical evidence of any kind. String theory is a case in point. A speculative explanation has value in accordance with its explanatory power and its consistency with what is already established by science. Thus, my speculative thoughts about the possible scientific basis for reincarnation were perfectly legitimate.

MJ also stated: "As of yet, the people that claim reincarnation does exist have yet to produce any evidence that stands up to scrutiny that reincarnation exists, so the assumption is that it does not."

This demonstrates simple ignorance regarding this subject. Nothing else needs to be said.

Where is the evidence to back up your claim?

"There is abundant evidence for reincarnation, if one accepts credible and consistent reports, many of which are verifiable. "

great claim, but where is the evidence to back up that claim?

As I pointed out more than once, if you want to make the claim, it is up to you to provide the evidence to back up your claim.

Any "reports" I have seen do not amount to peer reviewed science and rely on stuff that I would put in the same category as Mormon testimony that TSCC is true. Yes, you could, conceivably, be able to verify that the person had lost their car keys and that they found their keys after they prayed, so the "consistent reports" could be verified, BUT, the conclusion that TSCC is true based on these "consistent reports" that are verified simply would be an inappropriate conclusion to make. Those consistent reports do not prove TSCC is true any more that "consistent reports" means reincarnation is true.

If you want me to believe that "consistent reports" are proof, would you be willing to accept the consistent verifiable reports of TBMs as proof TSCC is true?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/2011 07:47PM by MJ.

O.K. I am struggling to be patient, here.

Like any scientific subject, the "evidence" is addressed in the literature addressing the subject in question. If you want to assess the evidence you are going to have to take the time to investigate it, just as you would if you were assessing evidence on any scientific subject. I cannot "give you the evidence" on this or any other subject in a short post.

Much of the reincarnation literature is drawn from legitimate departments of mainstream universities. And like most other academic literature, these writings are most probably peer reviewed--for what that's worth, since this is standard practice in any academic setting.

The phenomenology of Mormonism (Mormon spiritual experience) is also subject to scientific consideration and review, which is why most of us are out of it now. Again, it is not a matter of accepting reincarnation as "true" whatever that means. It is seeking a scientific explanation of an established experiential phenomena. Science, by the way, is very interested in providing the best explanation for Mormon (and other) "spiritual experiences." This includes probability explanations regarding answers to prayer, and neuroscientific explanations as to the physcial source of the experience.

What sets reincarnation reports apart from garden variety "spiritual experiences" is that they are not just reports of psychological experiences. They encompass a wide range of historical facts about claimed past lives that can often be verified by checking the historical record. Most often they involve children with no contact with such historical record, or the people involved. This is why you need to read the literature. You simply do not understand this issue, because you admittedly have not considered it. What genuinely puzzles me is why you, and others, feel the need to opine on matters of which you are not familiar, simply because of an apparent need to debunk anything and everything that might conceivably have religious or "spiritual" overtones.

Finally, I never used the word "proof." The word is inappropriate in a scientific discussion.

PRESENT THE FUCKING EVIDENCE.

How many times do I have to explain that I will not believe your claims just because you make the claim?

Unless you are willing to present actually evidence, I will assume that you are just arguing for arguments sake.

and if you want to claim that "consistent reports" are evidence of ANYTHING, then are you willing to admit the "consistent reports" of the LDS faithful that they found their keys after prayer is EVIDENCE that TSCC is true or have any evidentiery value at all?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/2011 11:26PM by MJ.

I am not and if you have an opinion, I'd be interested.

http://philofreligion.homestead.com/PostmortemSurvival.html

On a personal note, one of my brothers has told me he believes his young daughter is the reincarnation of my father based on things she has said to him that only he and my father would know. It is intriguing but I simply listen. I do wonder if it makes parenting her harder for him by causing some role confusion.

Interesting topic. I've enjoyed Dean Radin's Entangled Minds Blog, as he researches this and other paranormal topics and tries to do a credible job. I haven't been there much for a while.

http://deanradin.blogspot.com

I haven't done any reading specifically on this topic since my first venture into theosophy after college--except for a 2003 book by psychology professor Tobin Hart, "The Spiritual World of Children." (I was once researching the psychological dynamics of the "Indigo Children" phenomenon and collected many popular as well as academic sources on childhood spirituality. Ken Wilber wrote of this, too.)

Still, there is a major unaddressed assumption in this discussion/debate: that all partisans seem to believe in INCARNATION. (So, already halfway there to reincarnation. Sort of like the atheist claim that believers in the bible are already "atheists" in regard to other 'gods' like Zeus, Thor, Krishna, et al.) I have come to doubt that the ego-I of this present incarnation is anything like the spiritual "I-I" (as Ramana Maharshi termed it). If the Self is not incarnated now, it was never limited by past lives either.

Again, I refer to people's dream experiences: the figure-I in my dreams is never the full consciousness of the dreamer-I, asleep in his bed. At most, that figure-I captures some of the subconscious drives or automaticities, except for rare lucid dreams (which involve a different I-sense). Likewise, I'm not aware of any real continuity between the figure-I's on successive nights, which are likely just different selective packagings of those drives or automaticities (note: need more meditation to develop subtle continuity). Certainly those figure-I's don't remember the previous ones. I think there's an analogy here to the periodic dippings into incarnated consciousness.

...that reincarnation is a purely physical process that comes about when living things are recycled into each other in a given environment?

I had the 'eventual inevitability of reincarnation like a combo lock idea' and then read, among other things, Sagan's 'Demon Haunted World' where he referenced a philosopher (I think, I'll dig out my copy and look it up to be sure) who had a similar idea to the one I've been trying to explain in my other posts.

I think the question always returns to 'what is the self?' and 'where is it located?'
Some say outside the brain, I vote on the inside (heh, literally.)

British scientist J.B.S. Haldane.

"... Over immense periods of time the fluctuations [in the universe] will be sufficient to reconstitute a Universe into something like our own. If the universe is infinitely old, there will be an infinite number of of such reconstitutions."

My personal thoughts on the subject coalesced while watching several programs on M theory which postulates (among other things) an infinite number of big bangs, which make possible an infinite number of universes, which make possible an infinite number of earth-like planets, and so on...

Is it then not even the slenderest of theoretical possibilities that what created a single individual once, can EVENTUALLY create that individual again?

Please somebody tell me that they at least know what I am saying even if you think it is 100% absolute impossibility.

Gullible's Travel's Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So what of the idea...that reincarnation is a purely physical process
> that comes about when living things are recycled
> into each other in a given environment?

Hmm...I thought of the word before your "Found it!" post occurred.

But reincarnation, as "re-embodiment," needs a psychic continuity, otherwise there is just a reshuffling of the physical atoms, molecules. That happens, too, but is there any common "molecular memory" that continues to influence the new arrangement? (Hmm...I've read of cellular or organic "memory" in the case of transplanted hearts, etc. The recipient exhibited "new" likes and dislikes similar to the donor.)

Also, another confusion: the term metempsychosis, or transmigration of the soul, has come to be applied to the regression of consciousness to an animal or plant form. Esoterically, this would involve the loss of essential evolved structures of consciousness (such as self-consciousness as we know it), so for this to happen, the person must have in a sense revoked his or her human 'citizenship' by engaging in extremely debased subhuman practices. Hardly the norm in occult literature (though there are accounts of willful temporary metempsychosis as magickal transformations). Reincarnation, on the other hand, is an evolutionary process, and while certain misused faculties may be rendered dormant in a subsequent incarnation, there is no reversion, just a kind of "time-out" limitation until they can be recultivated correctly (harmlessly). I'm not stating this as "my" belief, but only as part of the literature.

Thanks for the link to Dean Radin. I just spent a couple of hours going over the Bem stuff. Radin has it nicely laid out, both sides, which makes for easy skimming. Very good stuff, Robertb. The whole blog is interesting.


I'm far too ignorant to say anything interesting towards the science of PSI or reincarnation, but I do my best to keep up with the writing of it in the popular culture of magazines, blogs, newspapers, etc. I don't read science per se, for example peer-reviewed journals and other detailed scientific writing. Alas because it is all very interesting. But time pushes other things to the forefront and so it goes…

However, I do know a bit about reincarnation via literary and religious texts. And I'm of course fascinated (and increasingly dismayed) by the rise of Scientism and how it is replacing our literary culture. --Have you heard, Ramachandran claims neuroscience can explain 20% of Art. I love the precision of that "20%". Ramachandran, ever the showman…


We think of reincarnation as a particularly Eastern idea and yet it's right there quite plainly at the beginning (roughly) of Western Thought. Plato ends his Republic with Socrates telling the story of Er, a man who died in battle only to arise from the funeral pyre 10 days later to tell a story of the afterlife, which includes the idea of reincarnation. Today we call Er's story an NDE.

Just before Er's story, Socrates gives an account of the soul (self) not unlike the account Richard Foxe gives of the self as 'not-self' in many of his postings. Allow me to quote from Jowett:

"[The Soul's] immortality is demonstrated by the previous argument, and there are many other proofs; but to see her as she really is, not as we now behold her, marred by communion with the body and other miseries, you must contemplate her with the eye of reason, in her original purity; and then her beauty will be revealed, and justice and injustice and all the things which we have described will be manifested more clearly. Thus far, we have seen her only in a condition which may be compared to that of the sea-god Glaucus…[and goes on in a literary way to demonstrate that we don't see the Soul our real Self as she is but as a distortion, distorted by our --as Richard has it-- bodily ego]."

What happened to this idea in the West? As far as I can tell (and allow me to skip the telling) it was present in original Christianity but suppressed in official Christianity.

The idea that we are other than we think we are, and capable of perception beyond our five senses, is endlessly fascinating and has been for millennia. I think Reed Smith's point is obvious: the experience of a Soul and reincarnation are abundant and consistent in Mankind for as long as we have been writing. What is missing is a comprehensive scientific explanation for the phenomena (short of saying "the brain did it").

Unfortunately, except for some theoretical fields, science is limited to those five senses or technological extensions of them. But what if those five senses actually create our 'sense' of being in the physical world? Of course they do--but what if they in truth create the physical universe as they (the senses) perceive it? Taking the body and its senses as the standard of truth, scientism is biased and its findings not falsifiable.

Note, though, the widespread acknowledgement even in science that the senses do not give us true representations, but highly mediated ones, and the conventional interpretations that we make of these with our brains are false, though constituting 'consensus reality.'

... no lack of bulls**t.

C'mon, man!

Timothy

I've seen lots of assumptions and speculation -- all good in their own right, mind you -- yet no sources or citations.

"There is abundant evidence for reincarnation, if one accepts credible and consistent reports, many of which are verifiable. This is not even much disputed anymore, except by hardcore skeptics who know little about the subject. What is lacking is a scientific explanation for such evidence. This is clearly and basically within the parameter of science, by definition. The business of science is exactly to explain the phenomena of experience."

Since you are well versed on the subject, why are you so hesitant to provide us citations for scientific studies on the probability of reincarnation? I don't see any meat to your claims as of yet and I certainly wouldn't mind seeing some.

"I cannot "give you the evidence" on this or any other subject in a short post. If you want to assess the evidence you are going to have to take the time to investigate it, just as you would if you were assessing evidence on any scientific subject."

You've seen Steve Benson's posts, yes? They don't have to be short, enlighten us please. You've made various claims about reincarnation, it would be in your best interest to support them with some substance.

"They encompass a wide range of historical facts about claimed past lives that can often be verified by checking the historical record."

Sources please?

"You simply do not understand this issue, because you admittedly have not considered it. What genuinely puzzles me is why you, and others, feel the need to opine on matters of which you are not familiar, simply because of an apparent need to debunk anything and everything that might conceivably have religious or "spiritual" overtones."

I disagree with you. I, and others feel the need to view this with a critical eye merely because we were duped for most of our lives by an insidious cult. We're not about to allow ourselves to believe baseless claims without merit (unless proven otherwise). You're honestly starting to read like an apologist. As of yet you have neglected to provide any sources or citations. I'm anxiously awaiting those.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/2011 10:57PM by Strykary.

Strykary Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> "I cannot "give you the evidence" on this or any
> other subject in a short post. If you want to
> assess the evidence you are going to have to take
> the time to investigate it, just as you would if
> you were assessing evidence on any scientific
> subject."
>
> You've seen Steve Benson's posts, yes? They don't
> have to be short, enlighten us please. You've made
> various claims about reincarnation, it would be in
> your best interest to support them with some
> substance.
>

And how long does a post have to be to provide a link to an article in a respected scientific journal that deals with peer reviews? Not long at all.

The reality is, trying to shift the burden of doing the work to prove or disprove their claims Reed Smith and Human are engaging in the burden of proof logical fallacy. The fact that they are willing to resort to logical fallacies and their unwillingness to post evidence to back up their claims makes it even more difficult to accept what they say as a logically valid well thought out point.

I 've been fascinated with this subject matter for some time now. As far as I'm concerned, it's strictly literary. While I find the idea compelling, I cannot bring myself to subscribe to it. This being why, among other reasons.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/2011 11:30PM by Strykary.

Or even that they believe in it... I can certainly see why people would want to believe in it.

But when they start saying that *I* should believe in it, or that their personal word should be accepted without question, then I have problem.

Just click on my moniker for the addy.

Timothy