Article on reincarnation

[Sriram]

There is no evidence to suggest that consciousness evolves independently of biological evolution though.  If consciousness evolves that is because conscious creatures evolve, and if there are more sophisticated implementations of it that will be because it is a phenomenon that confers a competitive advantage to the organism that benefits from it.  If all humans get wiped out tomorrow. all that sophisticated human consciousness is going to get wiped out too, trust me on this.  We are not going to see human consciousness reincarnated into the surviving insect populations.  If consciousness evolves, it is because species evolve.

Yes...consciousness evolves because organisms evolve, is correct.

The point is that organisms do not evolve by chance because of which consciousness merely happens to evolve along as an emergent property.  The very purpose of biological evolution is evolution of consciousness.

Of course, from this hypothesis certain things follow.... Reincarnation, survival of consciousness beyond bodily death, existence of parallel worlds etc. become automatic requirements. 

Nice isn't it?!   

It all fits in if you know how....  As it turns out, evolution isn't such an atheist idea after all! 

[Gordon]

Yes...consciousness evolves because organisms evolve, is correct.

The point is that organisms do not evolve by chance because of which consciousness merely happens to evolve along as an emergent property.  The very purpose of biological evolution is evolution of consciousness.

Is this the view of evolutionary biologists: you know, the experts?

Of course, from this hypothesis certain things follow.... Reincarnation, survival of consciousness beyond bodily death, existence of parallel worlds etc. become automatic requirements.

As noted before: you don't have a hypothesis. 

Nice isn't it?!   

Only if you replace 'nice' with 'silly'.

It all fits in if you know how....  As it turns out, evolution isn't such an atheist idea after all! 

The TofE is a scientific theory and not an 'atheist idea'.

[torridon]

Yes...consciousness evolves because organisms evolve, is correct.

The point is that organisms do not evolve by chance because of which consciousness merely happens to evolve along as an emergent property.  The very purpose of biological evolution is evolution of consciousness.

Of course, from this hypothesis certain things follow.... Reincarnation, survival of consciousness beyond bodily death, existence of parallel worlds etc. become automatic requirements. 

Nice isn't it?!   

It all fits in if you know how....  As it turns out, evolution isn't such an atheist idea after all! 

That's all conjecture without any basis in evidence though.  Fine to set the bar so low if you aren't really interested in what is true and what is not.  Early Europeans evolved white skin, so do we conclude that the purpose of evolution therefore is to be white ?

[Sriram]

That's all conjecture without any basis in evidence though.  Fine to set the bar so low if you aren't really interested in what is true and what is not.  Early Europeans evolved white skin, so do we conclude that the purpose of evolution therefore is to be white ?

Why? How does any of this detract from the Truth...or from any observations?!  In fact it explains more observations and experiences than the standard theory.

I agree lot of gaps to be filled. That will happen by and by as it happens with any other theory.   

[Stranger]

The point is that organisms do not evolve by chance because of which consciousness merely happens to evolve along as an emergent property.  The very purpose of biological evolution is evolution of consciousness.

So you assert, without evidence or reasoned argument and in contradiction of the known (from evidence) mechanisms of evolution. Also, if you are proposing that human level consciousness was the goal, then it's been an incredibly inefficient and wasteful process - what kind of idiot "intelligence" are you proposing is behind this purpose?

Of course, from this hypothesis certain things follow.... Reincarnation, survival of consciousness beyond bodily death, existence of parallel worlds etc. become automatic requirements. 

As has been pointed out, it isn't a hypothesis, it's an untestable, unfalsifiable, baseless assertion. What's more, even if it was a hypothesis, the things you mention do not logically follow from it. They are just more untestable, unfalsifiable, baseless assertions.

Seems you understand as little about logic as you do about science.

Nice isn't it?!   

Only if you think baseless fantasies being presented as serious possibilities are nice...

It all fits in if you know how....

Fantasies are like that...           

[torridon]

Why? How does any of this detract from the Truth...or from any observations?!  In fact it explains more observations and experiences than the standard theory.

I agree lot of gaps to be filled. That will happen by and by as it happens with any other theory.

You haven't presented any 'Truth'.  All you have given is baseless conjecture without any justification.  I could just as easily propose that the purpose of evolution is produce white skin.  But I don't because there is no justification for that.  We can't just go around making things up for no reason.

[Stranger]

In fact it explains more observations and experiences than the standard theory.

Nonsense. Nothing in your baseless fantasies is an explanation of anything at all. There is no mechanism - nothing that replaces the process of random variation and natural selection.

• How is this 'purpose' realised in practice?
• Where and when did it originate?
• How and where is consciousness stored when not in a brain?
• How does this (non-material?) consciousness integrate with the brain?
• What predictions does your 'hypothesis' make?
• How can they be tested?

and so on and so on and so on...

Are you really so utterly clueless as to think you've offered an explanation or hypothesis that can in any way be compared to science?

[Maeght]

Why? How does any of this detract from the Truth...or from any observations?!  In fact it explains more observations and experiences than the standard theory.

I agree lot of gaps to be filled. That will happen by and by as it happens with any other theory.

It is not the Truth nor is is a theory nor is it an hypothesis. It is an expression of what you want to be true. And you suggest others are blinded by memes!

Evolution (by Natural Selection) is not an atheist idea it is a very well supported scientific theory which explains a huge amount of observations and facts about this world in which we live, unlike your imagined story.

[Sriram]

Well..ok guys. Sigh! These memes are terrible things. Maybe your children and grandchildren will understand.... 

[ippy]

Looks like it's time for you to go back to the drawing book Sriram, quite a drubbing for you there in the last few posts.

This reincarnation's only an idea inside your head with zero anything to back it up, best dump it.

Regards ippy   

P S At least we wont be filling our children's or our grandchildren's heads with unsupported nonsense.

[Sriram]

Looks like it's time for you to go back to the drawing book Sriram, quite a drubbing for you there in the last few posts.

This reincarnation's only an idea inside your head with zero anything to back it up, best dump it.

Regards ippy   

P S At least we wont be filling our children's or our grandchildren's heads with unsupported nonsense.

Cheers....ippy!

[Stranger]

Well..ok guys. Sigh! These memes are terrible things. Maybe your children and grandchildren will understand.... 

Says the guy who, in the course of just this recent discussion, has shown that he doesn't understand science, doesn't understand evidence, doesn't understand logic, and doesn't even understand that memes are not all terrible things...

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Says the guy who, in the course of just this recent discussion, has shown that he doesn't understand science, doesn't understand evidence, doesn't understand logic, and doesn't even understand that memes are not all terrible things...

 

Still on about memes I see.

[Stranger]

Still on about memes I see.

It's actually Sriram who keeps bringing them up - despite apparently knowing nothing about the idea (which, unfortunately, seems to be par for the course for his pronouncements).

[Maeght]

Well..ok guys. Sigh! These memes are terrible things. Maybe your children and grandchildren will understand.... 

So you can't answer any of the points and resort to patronising comments. Take a look at yourself regarding memes Sriram, honestly.

[Sriram]

So you can't answer any of the points and resort to patronising comments. Take a look at yourself regarding memes Sriram, honestly.

The reasons I think your memes are more powerful than mine are.......

1. I have no problem with any of the established scientific facts. I accept evolution without any reservation. I agree about all observed facts.   I am not adopting a religious 'God did it' stand.

2. I am only having a problem about the assumed reasons for evolution.....ie. random variations and NS. The last word is yet to be said on this I am sure. Lot of new ideas on epigenetics and 'learning built into evolution', are going on. Neo Lamarckism is a serious alternative to Neo Darwinism. Even Darwin himself came up with NS only based on Artificial Selection that he saw in farms. In other words, NS was never meant to be seen as driven purely by random genetic and random environmental factors.

3. Besides evolution, there are other observations in our lives that deserve to be noted too. NDE cases, reincarnation cases and many more such phenomena. All these are observed phenomena and they need to be integrated with all other theories and cannot be kept at bay.

The lot of you are completely and consistently dismissive of all such phenomena.   You are petrified of any suggestion of survival post death because it brings with it a complete change in priorities and perception of life. Very strong reasons for meme resistance!

4. Even the opinions of eminent scientists on consciousness being fundamental to life, is disregarded by all of you because it does not fit in with your ideas of evolution and life.

5. I am not holding on to any religious beliefs. My stand on consciousness driving evolution is based on observed phenomena noted by scientists like Lamarck, perhaps even Darwin,  Max Planck, Wheeler, reincarnation cases studied by Ian Stevenson and Jim Tucker, NDE's cases studied by Raymond Moody, Sam Parnia and others.

Now, from the above, I am clear as to whose memes are preventing them from seeing reality. Certainly not mine!

Cheers.

Sriram

 

[Stranger]

So you can't answer any of the points and resort to patronising comments. Take a look at yourself regarding memes Sriram, honestly.

The reasons I think your memes are more powerful than mine are.......

You are just reinforcing Maeght's point. Instead of responding directly to the points that have been put to you, you just repeat the same things in you usual patronising way.

I'll only highlight the worst drivel...

Neo Lamarckism is a serious alternative to Neo Darwinism.

No it isn't. Epigenetics is limited in scope and does not change the genome. We have copious evidence that random variation and natural selection are the main mechanism for evolution.

Even Darwin himself came up with NS only based on Artificial Selection that he saw in farms. In other words, NS was never meant to be seen as driven purely by random genetic and random environmental factors.

Utter nonsense. I suggest you read On the Origin of Species. Artificial selection is a good analogy but the point was that a population's environment also 'selects' those individuals that are better suited to survival and reproduction within it.

You have never understood this (this has been made obvious many times here) so you are trying to criticise something you don't understand - it shows.

The lot of you are completely and consistently dismissive of all such phenomena.   You are petrified of any suggestion of survival post death because it brings with it a complete change in priorities and perception of life. Very strong reasons for meme resistance!

You consistently try to convince people (maybe including yourself) of all these phenomena. You are petrified of any suggestion of death being the end because it brings with it a complete change in priorities and perception of life. Very strong reasons for meme resistance!

Now, from the above, I am clear as to whose memes are preventing them from seeing reality.

Yes, so am I.

[Maeght]

Firstly, thank you for taking the time to give a considered reply.

The reasons I think your memes are more powerful than mine are.......

Glad you are accepting that you have memes. Of course you consider yourself to be less effected though. Lets look at your reasons then

1. I have no problem with any of the established scientific facts. I accept evolution without any reservation. I agree about all observed facts.   I am not adopting a religious 'God did it' stand.

I know you don't take a 'God did it stance' never said you did, but you do take a spiritual stance.

2. I am only having a problem about the assumed reasons for evolution.....ie. random variations and NS.

It is not an assumption but a theory supported by a vast amount of scientific evidence. That you have trouble with it reflects your meme and your incredulity.

The last word is yet to be said on this I am sure. Lot of new ideas on epigenetics and 'learning built into evolution', are going on. Neo Lamarckism is a serious alternative to Neo Darwinism.

Of course, science is always open to new evidence and new discoveries. The ToE by Natural Selection has not to date been invalidated by any evidence, and if it were a new Theory would be adopted to fit the scientifically established facts.

Even Darwin himself came up with NS only based on Artificial Selection that he saw in farms. In other words, NS was never meant to be seen as driven purely by random genetic and random environmental factors.

I don't think that is true at all, and even if it was, so what, evolutionary theory has moved on vastly since Darwin's initial theory and a huge amount of evidence exists to support the modern refined theories.

3. Besides evolution, there are other observations in our lives that deserve to be noted too. NDE cases, reincarnation cases and many more such phenomena. All these are observed phenomena and they need to be integrated with all other theories and cannot be kept at bay.

They are unexplained phenomena and cannot count as evidence since they are not facts, regardless of how strong your meme is to consider them as such.

The lot of you are completely and consistently dismissive of all such phenomena.

'We' do not accept your meme driven explanation of these reported phenomena since it lacks any evidence.

You are petrified of any suggestion of survival post death because it brings with it a complete change in priorities and perception of life. Very strong reasons for meme resistance!

Nonsense. You like to think people such as me are scared and avoiding what to you is an obvious truth but I wouldn't have any problems if reincarnation etc were shown to be true - it would all be fascinating and considering the implications would be incredible. There is no evidence for any of it though so as yet the reported phenomena are unexplained.

4. Even the opinions of eminent scientists on consciousness being fundamental to life, is disregarded by all of you because it does not fit in with your ideas of evolution and life.

Not discarded but seen for what it is, blue sky thinking and speculation by humans with imaginations. 

5. I am not holding on to any religious beliefs.

You have beliefs, regardless of whether they are 'religions' or not.

My stand on consciousness driving evolution is based on observed phenomena noted by scientists like Lamarck, perhaps even Darwin,  Max Planck, Wheeler, reincarnation cases studied by Ian Stevenson and Jim Tucker, NDE's cases studied by Raymond Moody, Sam Parnia and others.

No I really don't think it is. You cherry pick stuff, look for stuff which might support your belief, and consider yourself to be oh so much more enlightened than those who look at all the evidence and consider all alternatives, accepting that which there is evidence for and not accepting stuff for which there is no evidence. Not accepting is different from dismissing of course.

Now, from the above, I am clear as to whose memes are preventing them from seeing reality. Certainly not mine!

Of course you think that, but like much of what you think, believe and post on here the evidence doesn't support it.

[Sriram]

I know you don't take a 'God did it stance' never said you did, but you do take a spiritual stance.

What do you mean by a 'spiritual' stand?  'Spirit' is just a word. Today it is more fashionable to use the word Consciousness. It means the same thing.  So...I am no different from anyone who believes that Consciousness is not an emergent property of biology.  Call it spirituality, science, philosophy....whatever!

It is not an assumption but a theory supported by a vast amount of scientific evidence. That you have trouble with it reflects your meme and your incredulity.

Of course it is an assumption! Anything that appears random need not be so. The process could be so complex that it just appears random to simple minds. Randomness giving rise to such complexity and sophistication is impossible. 

Of course, science is always open to new evidence and new discoveries. The ToE by Natural Selection has not to date been invalidated by any evidence, and if it were a new Theory would be adopted to fit the scientifically established facts.

I don't find anyone readily embracing neo Lamarckism for example....   Scientists are as prone to holding on to their pet theories as much any one else. As I have said before...'evidence' does not come and knock anyone on the head and say ...'here I am'!   We need to think laterally...form a hypothesis and then go about trying hard to gather evidence...and connect relevant observations together.

I don't think that is true at all, and even if it was, so what, evolutionary theory has moved on vastly since Darwin's initial theory and a huge amount of evidence exists to support the modern refined theories.

Darwin was an agnostic...not an atheist.  He believed Nature selected traits for survival the same way people artificially selected traits that they desired in crops and animals.  He was also influenced by Lamarck.

They are unexplained phenomena and cannot count as evidence since they are not facts, regardless of how strong your meme is to consider them as such.

Dark Matter is unproven. Dark Energy is unproven. String is unproven. Parallel universes is unproven.   They are however considered seriously as possibilities nevertheless.   NDE's and reincarnation on the other hand have thousands of cases that can be studied. They can be taken seriously but for the mindset of people.

Nonsense. You like to think people such as me are scared and avoiding what to you is an obvious truth but I wouldn't have any problems if reincarnation etc were shown to be true - it would all be fascinating and considering the implications would be incredible. There is no evidence for any of it though so as yet the reported phenomena are unexplained.

What do you mean 'unexplained'?   Only if someone 'explains' it in terms of biology and chemical reactions....it will be taken as 'explained'...is it?!

Not discarded but seen for what it is, blue sky thinking and speculation by humans with imaginations. 

'blue sky thinking' because you don't like it. No one dismissed Relativity as 'blue sky thinking'...even though it took may decades to gather any evidence to support it. People took it seriously and were trying hard to gather evidence for it. It is this positive reaction that I am talking about.

You have beliefs, regardless of whether they are 'religions' or not.

So do you. You only like to think that everything you believe  has clinching evidence.

No I really don't think it is. You cherry pick stuff, look for stuff which might support your belief, and consider yourself to be oh so much more enlightened than those who look at all the evidence and consider all alternatives, accepting that which there is evidence for and not accepting stuff for which there is no evidence. Not accepting is different from dismissing of course.

What am I cherry picking? Ian Stevenson and Jim Tucker have analysed several cases of reincarnation. I take them seriously instead of being scornful. Many medical researchers have analysed NDE's. I am taking them seriously instead of treating them with contempt. I take the opinions of Max Planck and Wheeler seriously. That is what you call cherry picking....LOL!   The fact that most of you are so blind to such possibilities...that is cherry picking!

Of course you think that, but like much of what you think, believe and post on here the evidence doesn't support it.

There is plenty of evidence if one takes the right attitude.  There are people who are scornful of the moon landing and believe that there is no evidence for it. Does not mean that they are right. Its all about perception and attitude.

[torridon]

What am I cherry picking? Ian Stevenson and Jim Tucker have analysed several cases of reincarnation. I take them seriously instead of being scornful. Many medical researchers have analysed NDE's. I am taking them seriously instead of treating them with contempt. I take the opinions of Max Planck and Wheeler seriously. That is what you call cherry picking....LOL!   The fact that most of you are so blind to such possibilities...that is cherry picking!

Yep, that is cherry picking going on.  Anyone can scour the internet searching for quotes from famous people that could be construed to support your pet theory.  A handful of fantastic NDE or reincarnation claims are not going to overturn a knowledge base which is orders of magnitude more profound when they can be far more simply explained as psychological or neurological artefacts.  That is a sound principle at work, and that is why the overwhelming majority of scientists and doctors do not take such things seriously.  If everyone set the bar so low we would still be grunting in caves.

[Maeght]

What do you mean by a 'spiritual' stand?  'Spirit' is just a word. Today it is more fashionable to use the word Consciousness. It means the same thing.  So...I am no different from anyone who believes that Consciousness is not an emergent property of biology.  Call it spirituality, science, philosophy....whatever!

You use the term spiritual a lot. I'd probably replace it with believing in woo.

Of course it is an assumption! Anything that appears random need not be so. The process could be so complex that it just appears random to simple minds. Randomness giving rise to such complexity and sophistication is impossible.

Nonsense. If random is used it is because that is the current conclusion from the evidence - it is not an assumption. 

I don't find anyone readily embracing neo Lamarckism for example....   Scientists are as prone to holding on to their pet theories as much any one else.

They are not 'embracing it' because it is not supported by the evidence. It isn't about pet theories but about theories which are supported b y the evidence.

As I have said before...'evidence' does not come and knock anyone on the head and say ...'here I am'!   We need to think laterally...form a hypothesis and then go about trying hard to gather evidence...and connect relevant observations together.

And like I've said before, you don't understand what evidence means in science nor hypothesis nor theory.

Darwin was an agnostic...not an atheist.  He believed Nature selected traits for survival the same way people artificially selected traits that they desired in crops and animals.  He was also influenced by Lamarck.

Even if true, so what. As I said we have moved on a greatly from Darwin, based on the evidence not individual's beliefs.

Dark Matter is unproven. Dark Energy is unproven. String is unproven. Parallel universes is unproven.   They are however considered seriously as possibilities nevertheless

They are descriptions of observed phenomena. This has been explained to you before but you don't get it. Nothing is ever proven in science by the way.

NDE's and reincarnation on the other hand have thousands of cases that can be studied. They can be taken seriously but for the mindset of people.

What do you mean 'unexplained'?   Only if someone 'explains' it in terms of biology and chemical reactions....it will be taken as 'explained'...is it?!

We don't know what the reports of NDE's, memory transfer etc actually are, so they are unexplained phenomena. You take them on face value as being examples of consciousness surviving death etc but it is not known that this is what they are so are not evidence of anything.

'blue sky thinking' because you don't like it.

What makes you think I don't like it? I enjoy science and speculation as much as anyone else but recognise those things for what they are.

No one dismissed Relativity as 'blue sky thinking'...even though it took may decades to gather any evidence to support it. People took it seriously and were trying hard to gather evidence for it. It is this positive reaction that I am talking about.

Not dismissing anything, but recognising what things are and understanding where they are evidence and where they are not -unlike some.

So do you. You only like to think that everything you believe  has clinching evidence.

Nonsense.

What am I cherry picking? Ian Stevenson and Jim Tucker have analysed several cases of reincarnation. I take them seriously instead of being scornful. Many medical researchers have analysed NDE's. I am taking them seriously instead of treating them with contempt. I take the opinions of Max Planck and Wheeler seriously. That is what you call cherry picking....LOL!   The fact that most of you are so blind to such possibilities...that is cherry picking!

See Torridon's answer.

There is plenty of evidence if one takes the right attitude.  There are people who are scornful of the moon landing and believe that there is no evidence for it. Does not mean that they are right. Its all about perception and attitude.

Its really not. Again, shows you don't know what evidence is.

[Stranger]

Of course it is an assumption! Anything that appears random need not be so. The process could be so complex that it just appears random to simple minds. Randomness giving rise to such complexity and sophistication is impossible. 

Once again, you are making assertions based on your total (self-imposed) ignorance. Randomness and natural selection do give rise to complexity. That isn't an assumption, it's one of the best established theories in science, backed up by copious evidence, and a process that can be modelled on a computer.

Fanciful notions of an influence too subtle to be detected are laughable straw clutching.

Dark Matter is unproven. Dark Energy is unproven.

This has been explained to you many times and yet you still never miss an opportunity to publicly display your ignorance. Dark matter and dark energy are labels that have been applied to observations. Dark matter is a name give to whatever is causing the observations that appear to show the presence of unseen matter having a gravitational effect on visible matter. Dark energy is a label given to whatever is causing the observation that the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating.

Neither are unproven - there term doesn't even make sense in the context.

'blue sky thinking' because you don't like it. No one dismissed Relativity as 'blue sky thinking'...even though it took may decades to gather any evidence to support it. People took it seriously and were trying hard to gather evidence for it. It is this positive reaction that I am talking about.

That would be because relativity was a concrete mathematical hypothesis that made specific predictions that could be tested (even if not at the time). The 'blue sky thinking' was nothing but speculation. There is nothing wrong with speculation provided you understand that it is speculation.

However, trying to present speculation, that is really nothing but religiously motivated wishful thinking, as being some sort of theory or hypothesis that should be taken seriously by science, is simply dishonest.

[Sriram]

Ok...guys. I have nothing more to say on this subject.

Thanks & Cheers   

Sriram

[Robbie]

Says the guy who, in the course of just this recent discussion, has shown that he doesn't understand science, doesn't understand evidence, doesn't understand logic, and doesn't even understand that memes are not all terrible things...

 

I thought sririam was a scientist in his professional life ; could be wrong about that I suppose.

[Stranger]

I thought sririam was a scientist in his professional life ; could be wrong about that I suppose.

That actually made me laugh.

IIRC he once claimed to have had a scientific education but.... well, I dunno... maybe he did and he's forgotten a lot...