Reincarnation

[Sriram]

Did I mention numbers? No. It is the strength of the evidence which is important not numbers of anecdotes.

And therefore weak.

Climate change has been world news because there is a huge amount of strong evidence for it. Whether it is due to human activities is debated by some.

And that is why the work of such people as Jim Tucker and Raymond Moody is admirable. They are not stuck on Physics related methods of verification. They understand the nature of the phenomenon and do what best can be done under the circumstances instead of looking for unrealistic and perhaps idiotic ways of trying to prove something.

[Sriram]

It's been eliminated pretty thoroughly in you and your lot by the look of it.

I am skeptical of habitual skeptics!

[Shaker]

I am skeptical of habitual skeptics!

Unfortunately for you.

Unfortunately for the rest of us, come to that.

[Maeght]

And that is why the work of such people as Jim Tucker and Raymond Moody is admirable. They are not stuck on Physics related methods of verification. They understand the nature of the phenomenon and do what best can be done under the circumstances instead of looking for unrealistic and perhaps idiotic ways of trying to prove something.

They work to lower standards of evidence. Nothing admirable in that.

[Sriram]

They work to lower standards of evidence. Nothing admirable in that.

Lower standards of evidence??!! LOL!  Really?!! 

What are the higher standards of evidence in such matters, according to you?!

[Maeght]

Lower standards of evidence??!! LOL!  Really?!! 

What are the higher standards of evidence in such matters, according to you?!

LOL?! Really? How old are you?

It is not 'in these matters'. You yourself said 'They are not stuck on Physics related methods of verification' & 'The type of evidence is not going to change. I mean to say that we are never going to have hard evidence  in the form of a soul being identified, numbered, secret coded...and then the same soul being found later in another body..... or anything like that.' & 'It is going to remain anecdotal.' So lower standards of evidence than other fields require.

[torridon]

Hi...so...with all the evidence has anyone started accepting reincarnation as fact....yet??!!  Why not?!

Reincarnation and NDE's  are being researched by professional scientists and both areas have ample evidence. They fit in very well with the spiritual hypothesis of life. I am feeling quite vindicated...actually!

 

'Ample evidence' only if you are coming at this from a position of massive bias to start with.  If we can dismiss the legacy of belief systems from antiquity and how they have preconditioned us to think certain ways, then we find there is little to zero evidence.  For there to be ample evidence, then these strange accounts would be the norm, we would all remember past lives.  But in fact these accounts are exceedingly rare and their only substance is anecdotal claims, hardly the stuff of serious science at the best of times. When there is overwhelming evidence, then would be the time to take it seriously.

[Sriram]

LOL?! Really? How old are you?

It is not 'in these matters'. You yourself said 'They are not stuck on Physics related methods of verification' & 'The type of evidence is not going to change. I mean to say that we are never going to have hard evidence  in the form of a soul being identified, numbered, secret coded...and then the same soul being found later in another body..... or anything like that.' & 'It is going to remain anecdotal.' So lower standards of evidence than other fields require.

Its not about 'lower' standards. Why are you attaching a value to it?! It is about 'different' standards.   In fact, it is about different methods altogether considering that they are very different type of phenomena compared to physics.

[Sriram]

'Ample evidence' only if you are coming at this from a position of massive bias to start with.  If we can dismiss the legacy of belief systems from antiquity and how they have preconditioned us to think certain ways, then we find there is little to zero evidence.  For there to be ample evidence, then these strange accounts would be the norm, we would all remember past lives.  But in fact these accounts are exceedingly rare and their only substance is anecdotal claims, hardly the stuff of serious science at the best of times. When there is overwhelming evidence, then would be the time to take it seriously.

If investigators are unable to accommodate very different types of phenomena within their methodologies, they are never going to be true scientists. They will be leaving out a large chunk of reality from their so called investigations. Not very conducive to understanding Life and the universe, is it?! 

Secondly, unless people take something seriously they will never investigate it in the first place. Evidence doesn't fall into our laps automatically. It needs to be gathered painstakingly. Evidence for the validity of Relativity is being gathered even today. 

[torridon]

If investigators are unable to accommodate very different types of phenomena within their methodologies, they are never going to be true scientists. They will be leaving out a large chunk of reality from their so called investigations. Not very conducive to understanding Life and the universe, is it?! 

Secondly, unless people take something seriously they will never investigate it in the first place. Evidence doesn't fall into our laps automatically. It needs to be gathered painstakingly. Evidence for the validity of Relativity is being gathered even today.

With no precise definition of what it is that is being reincarnated how could it be tested for ? Relativity theory makes numerous specific predictions that we can test for, so we can do the observational work to verify it.  I don't think there is any equivalent with reincarnation.  All we have to go on is claims of memories, so is it memories that are being ported somehow from individual hippocampus to individual hippocampus across space and time ?  Gravitational waves make sense in the broader context of scientific knowledge, reincarnation absolutely doesn't.

[Sriram]

With no precise definition of what it is that is being reincarnated how could it be tested for ? Relativity theory makes numerous specific predictions that we can test for, so we can do the observational work to verify it.  I don't think there is any equivalent with reincarnation.  All we have to go on is claims of memories, so is it memories that are being ported somehow from individual hippocampus to individual hippocampus across space and time ?  Gravitational waves make sense in the broader context of scientific knowledge, reincarnation absolutely doesn't.

Relativity is physics...so it is obviously easy to use standard methods. My point in this context was that evidence needs to be gathered and does not make itself available by itself.

Reincarnation is nowhere like physics. You cannot complain that phenomena that are unlike physics exist in this world. You might be happier if they didn't....but unfortunately for you they do exist and we do need to investigate them in whatever manner they can be investigated. If they cannot be investigated by standard methods...we have to develop methods that are suitable for them.   

Don't keep trying to restrict the world to your known 'scientific knowledge'. That is the worst barrier to knowledge we can possibly have. 

[torridon]

Relativity is physics...so it is obviously easy to use standard methods. My point in this context was that evidence needs to be gathered and does not make itself available by itself.

Reincarnation is nowhere like physics. You cannot complain that phenomena that are unlike physics exist in this world. You might be happier if they didn't....but unfortunately for you they do exist and we do need to investigate them in whatever manner they can be investigated. If they cannot be investigated by standard methods...we have to develop methods that are suitable for them.   

Don't keep trying to restrict the world to your known 'scientific knowledge'. That is the worst barrier to knowledge we can possibly have.

Physics is the branch of knowledge that describes reality at its most fundamental levels and it is an ongoing journey of discovery;it does not 'restrict' itself to known knowledge, if that were the case then science would stop.  Rather, we build on what we have discovered to date, but we are not afraid to challenge or overturn previous understandings. We don't overturn an inherited body of knowledge lightly though, we must have substantial justification, to not observe this principle is to lack due diligence. We don't revise our understanding of reality at its most fundamental levels on the basis of curious anecdotal claims that cannot be verified.  That would be irresponsible.

[Sriram]

Physics is the branch of knowledge that describes reality at its most fundamental levels and it is an ongoing journey of discovery;it does not 'restrict' itself to known knowledge, if that were the case then science would stop.  Rather, we build on what we have discovered to date, but we are not afraid to challenge or overturn previous understandings. We don't overturn an inherited body of knowledge lightly though, we must have substantial justification, to not observe this principle is to lack due diligence. We don't revise our understanding of reality at its most fundamental levels on the basis of curious anecdotal claims that cannot be verified.  That would be irresponsible.

You don't have to revise your understanding of reality to accommodate other types of exotic phenomena.  You just have to accept that is a different facet of reality and subsequently try to integrate it with the more commonly known phenomena.

We have a certain understanding of one facet of reality does not mean we can summarily reject all other aspects just because we don't immediately see any common ground.

[torridon]

You don't have to revise your understanding of reality to accommodate other types of exotic phenomena.  You just have to accept that is a different facet of reality and subsequently try to integrate it with the more commonly known phenomena...

I don't think that is true.  Reincarnation would imply vast areas of our understanding of life sciences are wrong.  Not just different, wrong. Neuroscience, for instance, reveals that memories are stored as patterns of neural connections in cortical structures like the hippocampus. Accepting claims of memories of past lives implies that memories are not stored in biological structures at all, they are stored in the 'soul' or whatever it is that is reincarnated.  This raises the obvious question, why then do we have cortical structures for memory retention ?  Likewise with claims of people having OBE that they could 'see' whilst out of body, it implies a 'soul' can experience the phenomenology of biological vision systems without having biological vision systems, which raises the question, why then do we have biological vision systems ?  Makes no sense, that is why such ideas aren't taken seriously.

[Sriram]

I don't think that is true.  Reincarnation would imply vast areas of our understanding of life sciences are wrong.  Not just different, wrong. Neuroscience, for instance, reveals that memories are stored as patterns of neural connections in cortical structures like the hippocampus. Accepting claims of memories of past lives implies that memories are not stored in biological structures at all, they are stored in the 'soul' or whatever it is that is reincarnated.  This raises the obvious question, why then do we have cortical structures for memory retention ?  Likewise with claims of people having OBE that they could 'see' whilst out of body, it implies a 'soul' can experience the phenomenology of biological vision systems without having biological vision systems, which raises the question, why then do we have biological vision systems ?  Makes no sense, that is why such ideas aren't taken seriously.

No...that is not true at all. Just because one aspect is true it does not negate another aspect of reality.  It only means that we don't have the complete picture. That is all.

Only some people like you seem to have such apprehensions and problems of integration. Some scientists seem to have no problems viewing different disparate phenomena as parts of a very complex reality.

[torridon]

No...that is not true at all. Just because one aspect is true it does not negate another aspect of reality.  It only means that we don't have the complete picture. That is all.

Only some people like you seem to have such apprehensions and problems of integration. Some scientists seem to have no problems viewing different disparate phenomena as parts of a very complex reality.

If that were true, then where is their theoretical framework for that 'very complex reality' ?  This is what scientists do, take observations are induce a theoretical basis to explain the observations.  Where is it ? What is it ?

[Maeght]

Its not about 'lower' standards. Why are you attaching a value to it?! It is about 'different' standards.   In fact, it is about different methods altogether considering that they are very different type of phenomena compared to physics.

Anecdotes are lower standard and weaker evidence than that required in other areas, such as physics.

[SteveH]

I do hope this thread will soon die and not be reincarnated.

[Maeght]

I do hope this thread will soon die and not be reincarnated.

Why?

[SteveH]

Because it's tiresome and boring. I keep clicking on the 'Philosophy...' sub-forum, because the main menu indicates that there's been a new posting, only to find it's only to this or one of the other boring threads that I don't bother with. The same happens in the other sub-forums, of course.

[Sriram]

If that were true, then where is their theoretical framework for that 'very complex reality' ?  This is what scientists do, take observations are induce a theoretical basis to explain the observations.  Where is it ? What is it ?

Oh...you are actually looking for a Theory of Everything Everything!! People are yet to integrate QM and Relativity...so..we should not be too ambitious. 

What I am talking about is to sincerely investigate phenomena that we can see could be actually happening, such as NDE's and Reincarnations..to the extent possible.  We should not dismiss them as non issues or irrelevant or bizarre....just because we don't understand how they fit in with our limited world view.

That is all I am talking about. I am glad at least some professionals like Tucker and Moody are serious about such matters. Small blessings! 

[Gordon]

I am glad at least some professionals like Tucker and Moody are serious about such matters. Small blessings!

Then I think, Sriram, that perhaps you are too easily satisfied by woo merchants selling books to the gullible - such as Moody. From the Wiki page on him.

Barry Beyerstein, a professor of psychology, has written that Moody's alleged evidence for an afterlife is flawed, both logically and empirically.[8] The psychologist James Alcock has noted that Moody "...appears to ignore a great deal of the scientific literature dealing with hallucinatory experiences in general, just as he quickly glosses over the very real limitations of his research method."[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Moody

[Maeght]

What I am talking about is to sincerely investigate phenomena that we can see could be actually happening, such as NDE's and Reincarnations..to the extent possible.  We should not dismiss them as non issues or irrelevant or bizarre....just because we don't understand how they fit in with our limited world view.

But you went beyond that, saying 'Hi...so...with all the evidence has anyone started accepting reincarnation as fact....yet??!!  Why not?!' then mistaking scepticism for cynicism and criticising those who don't accept the weak evidence for reincarnation. If you'd stuck to the line that such things should be investigated then fine.

[torridon]

Oh...you are actually looking for a Theory of Everything Everything!! People are yet to integrate QM and Relativity...so..we should not be too ambitious. 

What I am talking about is to sincerely investigate phenomena that we can see could be actually happening, such as NDE's and Reincarnations..to the extent possible.  We should not dismiss them as non issues or irrelevant or bizarre....just because we don't understand how they fit in with our limited world view.

That is all I am talking about. I am glad at least some professionals like Tucker and Moody are serious about such matters. Small blessings!

Let us know when such people propose some tentative explanatory model.  That is what a 'serious' researcher would be doing, seeking an underlying explanation, not just cataloguing curious cases.  We already have sufficient explanatory model to account for bizarre claims in terms of the unreliability of witness testimony generally - people can lie, people can be confused, people can have false memories, people are chock full of biases and prejudices and we have had to learn this the hard way such that blind trials for instance is now the norm for testing new pharmaceuticals. As things stand this is a far more plausible explanation for outlandish personal claims than some root and branch revision of the entirety of our understandings of space, time, matter, information and life.

[Sriram]

Then I think, Sriram, that perhaps you are too easily satisfied by woo merchants selling books to the gullible - such as Moody. From the Wiki page on him.
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Moody

Moody is not the only one.  There are many other professional doctors and psychologists who have been studying this for more than 40 years now. Sam Parnia is also one of them.  How you people manage to search out some obscure negative feedback about anyone doing something out of the mainstream..is remarkable.